Background Information:
Member of the Knesset (MK): Leading Israeli opposition figure Moledet Party which is part of the National Union Party.
Professor of Medicine: Head of the Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem; internationally recognized specialist in this field. In wake of the 1994 genocide and cholera epidemic in Rwanda, Dr. Eldad headed the IDF medical contingent to that region.
Brigadier General (reserves): was Surgeon General of the IDF Medical Corps.
MK Arieh Eldad is the second ranking member of his party and was hailed by the Israeli press including Ma'ariv and Yediot Achronot as a man of integrity, hardworking, and a dedicated lawmaker. He heads the Ethics Committee of the Knesset. Recently, he helped launch the Ami-Chai Youth Movement to advance Zionism and educate Israeli students about the rich history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.
WRITING THE WRONGS (WTW) invited MK Eldad to share his thoughts and ideas regarding Israel today and we are most pleased to present his responses. The format includes not only direct comments by the Minister but a summary of some of his concerns.
WTW: Given that international law does give Israel authority within the disputed territories, do you think that the country or even the Diaspora has communicated this message effectively to the world community?
WTW: It seems that we failed if the whole world is speaking about the 'occupation' and the 'illegal settlements', 'illegal roadblocks' between the Palestinians; it seems that we failed the battle of propaganda, PR, if not in the real battle against terrorism.
WTW: How can we change the language in general that stigmatizes Israel - like 'occupation' instead of 'disputed'? Do you think there is something we can do?
MK: Yes, for example, many, many countries, even the United States, distinguish the attitude about east Jerusalem that we annexed in 1967 and what I call the West Bank which we didn’t annex. We can still change the attitude from an Israeli point of view-for example, Jordan occupied the West Bank for 19/20 years; we have occupied the area for 40 years and we gave it a chance. It seems we have failed all of these trials for peace; we have dead-end solutions and we shall seek other solutions. We will start it with annexation of Judea and Samaria to the state of Israel. Of course, the world will not recognize it; the world does not recognize Jerusalem is our capitol.
The way to change the world’s attitude about the 'occupation' is to first change our view of the occupation. If Israel thinks this is 'occupied' territory, there is no question that the world will think the same. Only if Israel will change its attitude toward this status, this is the only chance that other states in the world will change attitude toward it and their positions toward this territory. We will have to explain to the world what did change, the two-state solution is no longer part of our plan; we have taken the two-state solution off the table. We have to think of another solution. We have to take the step to explain to our coalition our position and then we should work toward the solution of the conflict as we see it. We must address the state of the refugees; this is a regional solution, we must say that Jordan is Palestine and then work toward the humanitarian problem of the people. Millions of dollars was poured into the refugee camps and they were taught to become terrorists. We must now undo the damage that was done all these years and teach them not to be terrorists and then communicate to the world the need to correct the mistakes that were done to these people.
WTW: What can we do?
MK: First, we must change the government. It failed; it is a non-functioning government. It is not only a failed government; it is a corrupt government. We must make sure that the next government is a pro-Zionist government. This is not a pro-Zionist government; it is a post-Zionist government. Once we are able to take this action, we can go to election, we will have to give Israelis the choice of a Zionist government and if we would be able to do that there is a chance that the next government will be able to turn things back, given we are on the edge of a catastrophe.
WTW: How can we get individuals to stand up and take such a position?
MK: It’s a difficult question because I do not know how to change someone like Bibi Netanyahu and make him a real leader. He is a politician that calculates all of his steps, by surveys and polls and not by ideology. If he would have a survey or public opinion poll that would say the majority of the people want him to speak to the Hamas, he will speak to the Hamas.
I’m trying to be realistic that we cannot change Bibi Netanyahu, but what we can do is create a situation in the political arena where even Bibi would have to create a coalition government based upon the concepts of the Right; the coalition would be strong enough to prevent him from slipping toward the Left or detouring toward a two-state solution.
WTW: Will you prioritize what you think are the urgent issues that Israel must address-now?
WTW Commentary: In response to this question MK Eldad was very clear-he indicated that security and corruption were the two most important issues Israel is facing today. He minced no words and indicated that corruption was pervasive across the spectrum of life here in Israel. He mentioned, but did not elaborate, that not only was there corruption throughout the government, he pointed fingers at banking, the Supreme Court, the judicial system, business , and even the military.
MK Eldad offered several examples, indicating that the Likud Party was corrupt during Sharon’s time in power. One of the outcomes of this was that respected Chief of Staff (COS) Moshe ”Bogie” Ya'alon (now retired was ousted because he disagreed vehemently with PM Sharon’s disengagement plan for Gaza. This did not fit PM Sharon’s plans and he looked for a 'yes-man'- thus, General Halutz became the COS. It was a political nomination that ensured PM Sharon of support for his plan.”
MK Eldad took this argument one step further and indicated that the generals of the northern, central, and southern commands had all at one time or another been secretaries to then PM Sharon. They owed their command appointments to Mr. Sharon and thus let us pick up MK Eldad’s further statements with regard to this issue:
MK: Corruption and the outcome of corruption even inside the IDF, the northern, central, and southern command leaders worked for the COS previously in the capacity of the right hand of Olmert so the military became political. People in the military see what this promoted in the military-the military must give the prime minister the truth, the arguments, the facts, the plans of the military are no longer the view of the military.
Let us look at Lebanon; any honest military man would agree that it is pure nonsense that the war could be won strictly by the air force, but this was the plan wanted by the politicians. There were not enough honest generals in the military to say, This is rubbish, it is not going to work. They knew once they said this, they would not be promoted by the leaders, so the military became corrupted in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture. Once the system is corrupted, the only way to protect the military is to clean the state of corruption. Once we do this, the natural forces will work.
WTW: Would you like to be part of this process and would you provide the leadership?
MK: I am trying to fight corruption in any means that I have. I'm trying first to present an example. My main message is not very popular. I do not try to get closer to rich people so they do not try to control my point of view nor am I trying to impress the media. I support looking out for ourselves. We need ideological leaders not people who will just "run the government".
WTW: Please complete the following sentence:
"Peace in the Middle East will occur when ..."
MK: … when the Arabs will realize we are here to stay to fulfill the mission of the Jewish People."
WTW Commentary: MK Eldad’s style has been to lead by example. According to those who serve with him, who know him professionally, he does indeed do what he says he will do. During our time before, during, and after the interview we found him to be forthcoming, calm, and unpretentious; never once did he try to impress us with his previous activities, honors, or services.
May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Political Correctness is Killing Us -Part 3
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 28,2007
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates not only political correctness in action but also should sound warning bells and lights about the intention of Islam today. The manipulation of certain freedoms found only in Western countries to create a different social sphere is the end game of PC. Here are some selective and instructive examples of this strategy at work:
· Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies
Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals. The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.1
· Christian British Airway employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross- The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewelry or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.2
· A school in Amsterdam will no longer be teaching students about farm living, after Muslim pupils began trashing the classroom when the subject of pigs was introduced.3
· At Lewiston, ME Middle School, placing pork in the mere presence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime. Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but, there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove pork, in order to honor their religious beliefs.4
· “Schools are dropping controversial subjects from history lessons - such as the Holocaust and the Crusades - because teachers do not want to cause offence, Government research has discovered.”5 At the risk of offending someone, it is now educationally prudent to disregard history. Thus, if a person cannot handle facts, a school or institution of education should honor the feelings rather than honor the truth. The rationale provided by these teachers is usually wrapped within the following justification:” Some teachers dropped the Holocaust completely from lessons because of fears that Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic reactions.”5 Do you really think they were concerned for the Jewish students or might they be more concerned about subsequent Muslim student behavior? Ask yourself, if the teachers were so concerned about the Jews and their feelings, why did they choose not to teach about the Holocaust?
This final part 3 unmasks the tactics of those promoting PC and offers some alternatives for individuals who believe that this kind of thinking is killing us. Let’s begin with some assumptions:
· PC obscures clear thinking and damages the very people and causes they claim to benefit
· PC has been described as the cancer of society, a virus that spreads quickly - eating its way through established social standards and values
· PC is effective because we accept “makes me” language as truth and hold ourselves responsible for the thoughts, feelings and actions of others.5
Groups use PC as a weapon to defeat their opposition or enemy. Their common strategy is to wear down, erode and create dissension among members of groups of people with respect to thoughts, feelings and actions that are appropriate. The end game is to indicate that group A’s beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all other groups and, thus, socially engineer a change in attitudes and actions of people. One is expected to ultimately deny one’s own beliefs and set of values and acquiesce to the now dominant view of the world. The society is no longer based upon free speech and common sense; it is grounded in PC ideals and the West is at risk for this assault. Without firing a shot, without building a military machine, the fifth column of PC thinkers slowly, over time, help erode a nation’s will, moral clarity, and submission ultimately occurs. PC tactics have been applied within the world of education, politics, business, religion, and social groups.
The tactics used against us have been effective, efficient and inexpensive. Islamists (values contrary,VC Islamists)* recognized years ago that we in the West had fallen prey to political correctness. They knew then and know today that the very strengths of Western society are the beliefs and values that are dear to us. However, they also recognized that these were our social “Achilles Heel” as well. We are generally a compassionate group of citizens, kind-hearted, caring, respectful of others and their points of view. We are tolerant, supportive of the less fortunate and/or disadvantaged, and guardians of personal freedoms. Given our values and beliefs, the tactics are fundamentally working because we accept, agree, and engage in the “makes me structure” presented in the second part of this series. We believe people are responsible for making others to have feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Based upon this, we further believe there is an uncontrollable cause and effect with people then acting upon these same feelings and thoughts. Therefore we become responsible for the essence of other human beings. As stated previously this is not true!5 However, those who do not believe in our way of life capitalize upon this psychological construct and have imported their tactics to multiple facets of our lives. Only a few are to be now examined.
Notice that VC Islamists use guilt and group guilt control to discredit, demean and disarm those it disagrees with and they engage in the very behavior which they condemn in others of - using social and political force to subdue dissent. This plays particularly well with a group of people who operate from positions and beliefs of tolerance, caring, empathy, never wanting to 'offend'. The end result is that we have “learned” not to voice our opinions and our beliefs and thus back down to every comment made. The difficulty then becomes once a group backs down time after time, the OFFENDED group makes demands under the cloud of either expressed or inferred threats. Repeated often enough, you fill in the rest! This begins the erosion of beliefs and more importantly the degradation of our will to stand against those with an opposing point of view. The very foundation the USA was founded upon freedom of expression; it becomes unidirectional and marks the beginning of the end.
Another tactic the VC Islamists use, in an ever-increasing quantity, is to make demands in social, cultural, political behavior. In fear of OFFENDING them or fear of retribution in the form of name calling, physical harm, political and economic pressure (code for threats), we are willing to give away what we believe to be true, we abdicate our responsibilities to our families, our own social groups and our country and we “stand down”. This repeated over time leads to the degradation of a society, it impacts our will to support what we believe, our perseverance wanes and we make social and political decisions that enhance our enemy. We “fool” ourselves into believing that we can co-exist, that they also believe in personal freedom, we begin to listen for what we want to hear rather than listen for what is BEING said. We reduce the budget for our military and intelligence communities, we increase immigration with Muslim countries, we help fund Islamic education centers and other programs-we do so with public monies. At the same time a most interesting behavior emerges, we vote Islamic-centered politicians into office because we believe that tolerance and acceptance transform any enemy who disagrees with our values. We do all of this even though the data, the behavior, the VC Islamists themselves tell us what and how they intend to transform our country into an Islamic one. We turn our “proverbial cheek” to the following:
· Updating the item on Azerbaijan in yesterday’s dispatch - the aid workers yesterday. Azerbaijani journalist who criticized Islam along with his editor has been jailed for two months.
· Updating the items on Somalia in yesterday’s dispatch - Islamist officials yesterday arrested at least 100 people in Lower Shabelle province in Somalia because they were watching a movie. The new Islamic regime has banned movies. Those arrested included women and children who were watching an Indian film.
· The Red Cross today suspended its activities in the Gaza Strip until further notice after Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two of its Italian aid workers yesterday.
There are thousands of other examples; these serve only as reminders. What can we do? Is there still time? First, take some moments and clearly define for yourself what your core beliefs are. Second, clearly understand the “makes me believe” construct, begin to listen for it and realize you do have a choice when events, people, circumstances and feelings present themselves to you. Third, locate one other person who supports your new found position that no longer will political correctness deny you taking actions against those who want to impose their values upon us. It is fine if you are not politically correct. Fourth, consider the following points:
· Not being PC does not mean you are a racist, fascist or any other -ist
· Not being PC does not mean you are not concerned about the lives of others
· Not being PC does not make you mean spirited
· Not being PC does not mean you are insensitive to the plight of others
· Not being PC does not mean you have phobias with religions, lifestyle choices, or people
· Not being PC does come with responsibility:
1. Clarity of thought and intentions
2. Selection of language used to express thoughts, feelings and ideas
3. Taking a stand for your beliefs and values even in the face of dismissal, denial and degradation of one’s character by others
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE PC
· It does not mean you have to give up your values
· It does not mean you cannot defend your way of life, what you believe in and how you choose to live your life
When PC seriously influences government policy development and implementation that places the advantage in our enemy’s hands, PC has literally killed us and will continue to do so until we as a people stand up for our way of life! Perhaps Ms. Nirenstein says it best with this assertion, "You cannot run away from reality indefinitely. Ultimately, you have to know what's right in terms of values, and be courageous about standing up for them."6
End Notes
1. Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals, April 28, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com
2. JANE MERRICK, Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross”, 14th October 2006
3. School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils. AMSTERDAM, 27/04/07
4. Sher Zieve, “Muslims Call Ham Sandwich Hate Crime”, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., April 25, 2007
5. Morris, GS Don, “Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two”,http://writingtw.blogspot.com/, April 22,2007.
6. Fiamma Nirenstein,” Making the case for commonality”, in an article written by Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, May 9,2007.
Special thanks to my editor-Chana Givon-co-director of WTW
*”Values contrary” simply acknowledges that a group of Islamists hold life, religious and social values contrary to Western social and cultural values
Also posted on: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
www.PRIMERCT.org
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 28,2007
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates not only political correctness in action but also should sound warning bells and lights about the intention of Islam today. The manipulation of certain freedoms found only in Western countries to create a different social sphere is the end game of PC. Here are some selective and instructive examples of this strategy at work:
· Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies
Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals. The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.1
· Christian British Airway employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross- The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewelry or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.2
· A school in Amsterdam will no longer be teaching students about farm living, after Muslim pupils began trashing the classroom when the subject of pigs was introduced.3
· At Lewiston, ME Middle School, placing pork in the mere presence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime. Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but, there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove pork, in order to honor their religious beliefs.4
· “Schools are dropping controversial subjects from history lessons - such as the Holocaust and the Crusades - because teachers do not want to cause offence, Government research has discovered.”5 At the risk of offending someone, it is now educationally prudent to disregard history. Thus, if a person cannot handle facts, a school or institution of education should honor the feelings rather than honor the truth. The rationale provided by these teachers is usually wrapped within the following justification:” Some teachers dropped the Holocaust completely from lessons because of fears that Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic reactions.”5 Do you really think they were concerned for the Jewish students or might they be more concerned about subsequent Muslim student behavior? Ask yourself, if the teachers were so concerned about the Jews and their feelings, why did they choose not to teach about the Holocaust?
This final part 3 unmasks the tactics of those promoting PC and offers some alternatives for individuals who believe that this kind of thinking is killing us. Let’s begin with some assumptions:
· PC obscures clear thinking and damages the very people and causes they claim to benefit
· PC has been described as the cancer of society, a virus that spreads quickly - eating its way through established social standards and values
· PC is effective because we accept “makes me” language as truth and hold ourselves responsible for the thoughts, feelings and actions of others.5
Groups use PC as a weapon to defeat their opposition or enemy. Their common strategy is to wear down, erode and create dissension among members of groups of people with respect to thoughts, feelings and actions that are appropriate. The end game is to indicate that group A’s beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all other groups and, thus, socially engineer a change in attitudes and actions of people. One is expected to ultimately deny one’s own beliefs and set of values and acquiesce to the now dominant view of the world. The society is no longer based upon free speech and common sense; it is grounded in PC ideals and the West is at risk for this assault. Without firing a shot, without building a military machine, the fifth column of PC thinkers slowly, over time, help erode a nation’s will, moral clarity, and submission ultimately occurs. PC tactics have been applied within the world of education, politics, business, religion, and social groups.
The tactics used against us have been effective, efficient and inexpensive. Islamists (values contrary,VC Islamists)* recognized years ago that we in the West had fallen prey to political correctness. They knew then and know today that the very strengths of Western society are the beliefs and values that are dear to us. However, they also recognized that these were our social “Achilles Heel” as well. We are generally a compassionate group of citizens, kind-hearted, caring, respectful of others and their points of view. We are tolerant, supportive of the less fortunate and/or disadvantaged, and guardians of personal freedoms. Given our values and beliefs, the tactics are fundamentally working because we accept, agree, and engage in the “makes me structure” presented in the second part of this series. We believe people are responsible for making others to have feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Based upon this, we further believe there is an uncontrollable cause and effect with people then acting upon these same feelings and thoughts. Therefore we become responsible for the essence of other human beings. As stated previously this is not true!5 However, those who do not believe in our way of life capitalize upon this psychological construct and have imported their tactics to multiple facets of our lives. Only a few are to be now examined.
Notice that VC Islamists use guilt and group guilt control to discredit, demean and disarm those it disagrees with and they engage in the very behavior which they condemn in others of - using social and political force to subdue dissent. This plays particularly well with a group of people who operate from positions and beliefs of tolerance, caring, empathy, never wanting to 'offend'. The end result is that we have “learned” not to voice our opinions and our beliefs and thus back down to every comment made. The difficulty then becomes once a group backs down time after time, the OFFENDED group makes demands under the cloud of either expressed or inferred threats. Repeated often enough, you fill in the rest! This begins the erosion of beliefs and more importantly the degradation of our will to stand against those with an opposing point of view. The very foundation the USA was founded upon freedom of expression; it becomes unidirectional and marks the beginning of the end.
Another tactic the VC Islamists use, in an ever-increasing quantity, is to make demands in social, cultural, political behavior. In fear of OFFENDING them or fear of retribution in the form of name calling, physical harm, political and economic pressure (code for threats), we are willing to give away what we believe to be true, we abdicate our responsibilities to our families, our own social groups and our country and we “stand down”. This repeated over time leads to the degradation of a society, it impacts our will to support what we believe, our perseverance wanes and we make social and political decisions that enhance our enemy. We “fool” ourselves into believing that we can co-exist, that they also believe in personal freedom, we begin to listen for what we want to hear rather than listen for what is BEING said. We reduce the budget for our military and intelligence communities, we increase immigration with Muslim countries, we help fund Islamic education centers and other programs-we do so with public monies. At the same time a most interesting behavior emerges, we vote Islamic-centered politicians into office because we believe that tolerance and acceptance transform any enemy who disagrees with our values. We do all of this even though the data, the behavior, the VC Islamists themselves tell us what and how they intend to transform our country into an Islamic one. We turn our “proverbial cheek” to the following:
· Updating the item on Azerbaijan in yesterday’s dispatch - the aid workers yesterday. Azerbaijani journalist who criticized Islam along with his editor has been jailed for two months.
· Updating the items on Somalia in yesterday’s dispatch - Islamist officials yesterday arrested at least 100 people in Lower Shabelle province in Somalia because they were watching a movie. The new Islamic regime has banned movies. Those arrested included women and children who were watching an Indian film.
· The Red Cross today suspended its activities in the Gaza Strip until further notice after Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two of its Italian aid workers yesterday.
There are thousands of other examples; these serve only as reminders. What can we do? Is there still time? First, take some moments and clearly define for yourself what your core beliefs are. Second, clearly understand the “makes me believe” construct, begin to listen for it and realize you do have a choice when events, people, circumstances and feelings present themselves to you. Third, locate one other person who supports your new found position that no longer will political correctness deny you taking actions against those who want to impose their values upon us. It is fine if you are not politically correct. Fourth, consider the following points:
· Not being PC does not mean you are a racist, fascist or any other -ist
· Not being PC does not mean you are not concerned about the lives of others
· Not being PC does not make you mean spirited
· Not being PC does not mean you are insensitive to the plight of others
· Not being PC does not mean you have phobias with religions, lifestyle choices, or people
· Not being PC does come with responsibility:
1. Clarity of thought and intentions
2. Selection of language used to express thoughts, feelings and ideas
3. Taking a stand for your beliefs and values even in the face of dismissal, denial and degradation of one’s character by others
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE PC
· It does not mean you have to give up your values
· It does not mean you cannot defend your way of life, what you believe in and how you choose to live your life
When PC seriously influences government policy development and implementation that places the advantage in our enemy’s hands, PC has literally killed us and will continue to do so until we as a people stand up for our way of life! Perhaps Ms. Nirenstein says it best with this assertion, "You cannot run away from reality indefinitely. Ultimately, you have to know what's right in terms of values, and be courageous about standing up for them."6
End Notes
1. Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals, April 28, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com
2. JANE MERRICK, Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross”, 14th October 2006
3. School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils. AMSTERDAM, 27/04/07
4. Sher Zieve, “Muslims Call Ham Sandwich Hate Crime”, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., April 25, 2007
5. Morris, GS Don, “Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two”,http://writingtw.blogspot.com/, April 22,2007.
6. Fiamma Nirenstein,” Making the case for commonality”, in an article written by Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, May 9,2007.
Special thanks to my editor-Chana Givon-co-director of WTW
*”Values contrary” simply acknowledges that a group of Islamists hold life, religious and social values contrary to Western social and cultural values
Also posted on: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
www.PRIMERCT.org
Fifty-Nine Years of Hate
By Salim Mansur
Western Standard
Fifty-nine years ago on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion read the declaration of independence proclaiming the establishment of Israel with little display of joy among those gathered together in the Tel Aviv Museum that afternoon. Ben-Gurion remarked, “I feel no gaiety in me, only deep anxiety, as on the 29th of November [1947, date of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine] when I was like a mourner at the feast.”
Nearly two thousand years after the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and dispersed Jews from their homeland, the rebirth of Israel offered a slim hope to people who barely survived Nazi Germany’s final solution for European Jewry. If Israel had come into being ten years earlier, a great many of those Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have survived. If Israel had been founded before Hitler launched his war in September 1939, the history of the region arguably might well have been different, and Britain’s “moment in the Middle East” (the phrase belongs to the historian Elizabeth Monroe) could eventually have drawn to a close without the acrimony and humiliation of 1956.
Britain sought to appease the Arabs. Instead of delivering the Jewish state that Britain promised by opening Palestine for a Jewish homeland as set forth in the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, London imposed restrictions in May 1939 on Jewish emigration into Palestine, when the opposite was most sorely needed. Appeasement failed in Europe and it failed in the Middle East as Britain’s Arab allies were overthrown in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958), or hemmed in (Jordan) by the anti-colonial nationalist tide in the region.
For Ben-Gurion’s generation, the writing was on the wall. Two millennia of anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in a war of extermination of the Jews, and in the hour of their greatest need as a people to survive, Jews found themselves abandoned. The UN partition of Palestine opened ever so slightly the possibility of the Jews acquiring statehood, in the process becoming politically a normal people, like others – the Arabs, for instance – with states of their own.
The Jewish Agency accepted the UN plan of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN plan and opted for war to deny the Jews a state of their own. Even as the world was barely beginning to recognize the magnitude of the Holocaust, the Jews in Palestine faced encirclement and annihilation. Six decades and several wars later, Ben-Gurion’s Israel has survived, grown stronger militarily and economically, and is the only free and open society in a region where dictatorships are the norm and tyranny in various disguises conspires against the human instinct for freedom.
Yet Israel remains encircled, and the threat of its annihilation is real and public. Even though Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), public hostility against the Jewish state in the Arab world remains deep and widespread. Since 1979, Iran under the rule of Shiite clerics has extended the radius of threat to Israel beyond the Arab Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is over a century old. In the opinion of many it is the most intractable conflict of our time. It is layered with opposing nationalisms and non-negotiable claims in the name of religions – Judaism and Islam – made by their adherents.
Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan suggest neither Arab nationalism nor Islam represent insurmountable difficulties for peace between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. Then, it might be asked, what is it that has rendered the Arab-Israeli, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable for so long and at such cost, with no apparent solution at hand?
The answer is beguilingly simple. Elias Khoury, a Palestinian Christian writer, observed, “Palestine isn’t a country for it to have a flag. Palestine is a condition. Every Arab is a Palestinian . . . Palestine is the condition of us all.” In other words, Palestine is a mood, a rage, a rallying call of the tribe against its real and imagined enemies, and against which reason is disarmed. In this tribal framework of honour-shame culture, Jews are a people of another tribe who in the past of Arab Islamic history belonged to a lower social status under Muslim rule.
The Jewish ambition in Palestine to acquire a state, and then repeatedly defeating Arab efforts to score even a nominal victory against Israel, are an affront of such magnitude in the context of Arab tribal culture that the resulting shame could only be washed away by blood. It was not inevitable, however, that Jewish hopes for Palestine and the Arab response would become trapped in such a bloody embrace.
When Prince Feisal, son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca and an ally of Britain, wrote in 1919 to Felix Frankfurter attending the Paris Peace Conference, “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home,” he meant it. The princely sentiment represented an aspect of traditional Arab humanity, uncontaminated by the sort of nationalism that would soon inflame the tribal honour-shame culture.
There is nothing in Islam that can legitimate Arab denial of the Jews’ rights as a people. The Koran (5:20-21) expressly indicates God instructing Moses to take his people into the land designated as Palestine. And when Mohammed was instructed to pray in the direction of Mecca and not Jerusalem – resulting in Mecca becoming the holy centre of Islam – any religious-based Muslim claim on Jerusalem was taken away by the Koran.
Sadly, Prince Feisal’s gesture was lost in the emerging new politics of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1890s-1974) that became dominant between the two world wars. Haj Amin’s politics were demagogic and rabidly anti-Jewish. He collaborated with Hitler, destroyed any possibility of reasonable accommodation with the Jews and laid the template for Palestinian politics of self-destruction.
At any time during the past century Palestinian Arabs could have worked out a settlement with Jews. They could have adopted Prince Feisal’s gesture as their own while recognizing that the return of Jews to Palestine was consistent with God’s words as revealed in the Koran. But they opted instead to make war against the Jews and, consequently, they went to war against the Koran.
There is a lesson to be learned from this century-old conflict. Appeasement as a policy to settle conflicts peacefully does not work. What works is when parties in conflict discover the meaning and benefits of reasonableness. Jewish survival and progress despite the Holocaust is one of the noblest demonstrations of reasonableness at work in history. It is for the Palestinian Arabs to show their capacity to be reasonable after having amply demonstrated their capacity for self-destruction.
Posted May 24, 2007 Front Page Magazine
By Salim Mansur
Western Standard
Fifty-nine years ago on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion read the declaration of independence proclaiming the establishment of Israel with little display of joy among those gathered together in the Tel Aviv Museum that afternoon. Ben-Gurion remarked, “I feel no gaiety in me, only deep anxiety, as on the 29th of November [1947, date of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine] when I was like a mourner at the feast.”
Nearly two thousand years after the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and dispersed Jews from their homeland, the rebirth of Israel offered a slim hope to people who barely survived Nazi Germany’s final solution for European Jewry. If Israel had come into being ten years earlier, a great many of those Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have survived. If Israel had been founded before Hitler launched his war in September 1939, the history of the region arguably might well have been different, and Britain’s “moment in the Middle East” (the phrase belongs to the historian Elizabeth Monroe) could eventually have drawn to a close without the acrimony and humiliation of 1956.
Britain sought to appease the Arabs. Instead of delivering the Jewish state that Britain promised by opening Palestine for a Jewish homeland as set forth in the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, London imposed restrictions in May 1939 on Jewish emigration into Palestine, when the opposite was most sorely needed. Appeasement failed in Europe and it failed in the Middle East as Britain’s Arab allies were overthrown in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958), or hemmed in (Jordan) by the anti-colonial nationalist tide in the region.
For Ben-Gurion’s generation, the writing was on the wall. Two millennia of anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in a war of extermination of the Jews, and in the hour of their greatest need as a people to survive, Jews found themselves abandoned. The UN partition of Palestine opened ever so slightly the possibility of the Jews acquiring statehood, in the process becoming politically a normal people, like others – the Arabs, for instance – with states of their own.
The Jewish Agency accepted the UN plan of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN plan and opted for war to deny the Jews a state of their own. Even as the world was barely beginning to recognize the magnitude of the Holocaust, the Jews in Palestine faced encirclement and annihilation. Six decades and several wars later, Ben-Gurion’s Israel has survived, grown stronger militarily and economically, and is the only free and open society in a region where dictatorships are the norm and tyranny in various disguises conspires against the human instinct for freedom.
Yet Israel remains encircled, and the threat of its annihilation is real and public. Even though Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), public hostility against the Jewish state in the Arab world remains deep and widespread. Since 1979, Iran under the rule of Shiite clerics has extended the radius of threat to Israel beyond the Arab Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is over a century old. In the opinion of many it is the most intractable conflict of our time. It is layered with opposing nationalisms and non-negotiable claims in the name of religions – Judaism and Islam – made by their adherents.
Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan suggest neither Arab nationalism nor Islam represent insurmountable difficulties for peace between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. Then, it might be asked, what is it that has rendered the Arab-Israeli, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable for so long and at such cost, with no apparent solution at hand?
The answer is beguilingly simple. Elias Khoury, a Palestinian Christian writer, observed, “Palestine isn’t a country for it to have a flag. Palestine is a condition. Every Arab is a Palestinian . . . Palestine is the condition of us all.” In other words, Palestine is a mood, a rage, a rallying call of the tribe against its real and imagined enemies, and against which reason is disarmed. In this tribal framework of honour-shame culture, Jews are a people of another tribe who in the past of Arab Islamic history belonged to a lower social status under Muslim rule.
The Jewish ambition in Palestine to acquire a state, and then repeatedly defeating Arab efforts to score even a nominal victory against Israel, are an affront of such magnitude in the context of Arab tribal culture that the resulting shame could only be washed away by blood. It was not inevitable, however, that Jewish hopes for Palestine and the Arab response would become trapped in such a bloody embrace.
When Prince Feisal, son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca and an ally of Britain, wrote in 1919 to Felix Frankfurter attending the Paris Peace Conference, “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home,” he meant it. The princely sentiment represented an aspect of traditional Arab humanity, uncontaminated by the sort of nationalism that would soon inflame the tribal honour-shame culture.
There is nothing in Islam that can legitimate Arab denial of the Jews’ rights as a people. The Koran (5:20-21) expressly indicates God instructing Moses to take his people into the land designated as Palestine. And when Mohammed was instructed to pray in the direction of Mecca and not Jerusalem – resulting in Mecca becoming the holy centre of Islam – any religious-based Muslim claim on Jerusalem was taken away by the Koran.
Sadly, Prince Feisal’s gesture was lost in the emerging new politics of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1890s-1974) that became dominant between the two world wars. Haj Amin’s politics were demagogic and rabidly anti-Jewish. He collaborated with Hitler, destroyed any possibility of reasonable accommodation with the Jews and laid the template for Palestinian politics of self-destruction.
At any time during the past century Palestinian Arabs could have worked out a settlement with Jews. They could have adopted Prince Feisal’s gesture as their own while recognizing that the return of Jews to Palestine was consistent with God’s words as revealed in the Koran. But they opted instead to make war against the Jews and, consequently, they went to war against the Koran.
There is a lesson to be learned from this century-old conflict. Appeasement as a policy to settle conflicts peacefully does not work. What works is when parties in conflict discover the meaning and benefits of reasonableness. Jewish survival and progress despite the Holocaust is one of the noblest demonstrations of reasonableness at work in history. It is for the Palestinian Arabs to show their capacity to be reasonable after having amply demonstrated their capacity for self-destruction.
Posted May 24, 2007 Front Page Magazine
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Does Israeli policymaking work like American Idol?
By Arlene Kushner
May 24, 2007
On May 8, American pollster Stanley Greenberg spoke before the Israeli Knesset's Subcommittee on Foreign and Public Relations. In a subsequent statement to The Jerusalem Post he shared his message: "There is strong support for Israel in the United States. It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace. That commitment is important to Americans viewing Israel as an ally, and for Europeans seeing Israel as a moderate country." This was not Greenberg's first meeting with the subcommittee. According to chair Amira Dotan, he "makes recommendations to the Knesset and Foreign Ministry" when he is in Israel. An American pollster making recommendations to the Knesset? One does not have to dig too deeply to see what is going on. Greenberg's poll was commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP). On its website TIP describes itself as: "an international [i.e., American and Israeli] non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency." That last sentence -- which I believe is a recent addition -- may be technically accurate, but only technically.
At the end of March, I read a report released by TIP entitled: "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution, Hamas continues to embrace terror." I saw this as misleading in two respects. Most significantly, the statement "Hamas continues to embrace terror" leads directly and inexorably to the conclusion that Fatah -- and Abbas -- do not embrace terror. But factually this is not the case, as an examination of Abbas's actions and his words in Arabic to his own people makes clear. What is more, it seemed to me inaccurate, as well, to say that "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution," for a significant portion of the populace is now exceedingly mistrustful of the idea of a Palestinian state.
It is the Olmert government, with disregard for public will, that promotes a "two-state solution." I saw the whitewash of Abbas in this report as serving the ideological goals of Olmert, while failing to address the reality of Fatah as a terror organization. This from an organization that purports to provide "accurate information." And so, I wrote to Calev Ben David, who is director of TIP's Jerusalem office. And I said, "The proper title for a report of yours would be 'Israel is prepared for peace negotiations when a true partner emerges.' "I know you're toeing the line of the Israeli government, but you are doing the people of Israel a disservice, in my opinion, by not being more forthright regarding the situation. We are at a critical juncture now?with regard to the long term security of Israel and concessions that may be demanded of us that put us at existential risk." In replying, Ben David wrote, "You are right: TIP is following after the policy of the democratically-elected government. "?If this government -- or the next one -- decides that Abbas is not a suitable figure to dialogue with, rest assured that we will be on the front line of explaining why he isn't." So it's clear where TIP is coming from. Ben David was describing the approach of the current government: As long as we intend to engage with Abbas, there's no need to explain why his terrorist connections make him an unsuitable candidate for dialogue. It is also clear where Greenberg is coming from.
In the fall of 2005, TIP held a press conference in Jerusalem featuring his most recently completed poll. Greenberg provided figures that purportedly demonstrated that the American public's approval of Israel increased after the (then) recently completed disengagement from Gaza. The implied message here was that the Sharon government had done a good thing to pull people out of Gush Katif, as it enhanced Israel's international standing. I was present, and may have been the only one there who caught the bias in Greenberg's polling technique. He explained that for purposes of the poll they sought persons knowledgeable about the issues -- people who read the NY Times or watch CNN. But these media sources are left-wing and obviously touted the disengagement as a good thing! Not a word about people who watch Fox news, or read the Washington Times, or the NY Sun. Not a word about striking a balance. A population skewed to the left had been polled. But in any event, the underlying premise was wrong: That the correctness of a policy can be determined by polling international public opinion. Which brings us to the current situation: Israel wages a constant uphill public relations battle. And so it is understandable that Israeli officials might be eager to secure favorable opinion ratings in the US. But the current practice of receiving "advice" on what would increase favorable opinion is a disaster. It promotes an approach that is precisely the inverse of what should be taking place.
An autonomous nation cannot responsibly determine its own most appropriate course of action by shaping it in accordance with what would please an international public. Yet this is what seems to be happening. Not only are we witnessing the phenomenon of a pollster "making recommendations" to Israel's legislators, we must keep in mind that this pollster, commissioned by TIP, has an agenda, as is perhaps inevitable. In delivering his message -- "It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace" -- Greenberg is setting the ground for the Olmert approach to continued talks with Abbas. You want the world to like you? You must show good faith by doing this. It's what they are looking for. Imagine if Greenberg had done a very different poll and had come to tell the Knesset, for example, that the American public is afraid of Islamists and respects those who stand strong against them, or that a majority of Americans think Abbas is not a fit partner for peace. Perhaps these things are true. If Greenberg has polled Americans on these issues, he isn't telling us. And he certainly isn't delivering a message that strengthens Israel's resolve against terrorists.
A nation with a healthy respect for its own legitimate rights and needs, instead of attempting to devise policy to fit public opinion, would take a very different approach: Yes, we hope the world will like us, but first we must shape policies that are warranted and in the national best interest. Does this wipe away the need for a strong public relations effort? Not at all. Instead it assigns the appropriate ancillary role to public relations (and polling procedures). That role is an important one: Making the case for Israel and her policy decisions, and making certain that the message is being assimilated and properly understood. There is no lack of work to be done in this regard. The Western world simply does not get it, in good measure because it not being given the facts: - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is existential and not about borders. - Fatah has terrorist connections. - A strong Israel advances American interests. - Iran already has influence with Palestinian groups in the West Bank. - Conciliation is interpreted by the Arabs as weakness. - If Israel is diminished, the Islamists will be emboldened. - Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not reduce tensions elsewhere in the Mid-East. These are messages that the Olmert government, for its own reasons, is not delivering. How different Israel's public relations situation might be if they were delivered.
Appeared first in Israel Insider
See Arlene's wesite: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
By Arlene Kushner
May 24, 2007
On May 8, American pollster Stanley Greenberg spoke before the Israeli Knesset's Subcommittee on Foreign and Public Relations. In a subsequent statement to The Jerusalem Post he shared his message: "There is strong support for Israel in the United States. It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace. That commitment is important to Americans viewing Israel as an ally, and for Europeans seeing Israel as a moderate country." This was not Greenberg's first meeting with the subcommittee. According to chair Amira Dotan, he "makes recommendations to the Knesset and Foreign Ministry" when he is in Israel. An American pollster making recommendations to the Knesset? One does not have to dig too deeply to see what is going on. Greenberg's poll was commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP). On its website TIP describes itself as: "an international [i.e., American and Israeli] non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency." That last sentence -- which I believe is a recent addition -- may be technically accurate, but only technically.
At the end of March, I read a report released by TIP entitled: "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution, Hamas continues to embrace terror." I saw this as misleading in two respects. Most significantly, the statement "Hamas continues to embrace terror" leads directly and inexorably to the conclusion that Fatah -- and Abbas -- do not embrace terror. But factually this is not the case, as an examination of Abbas's actions and his words in Arabic to his own people makes clear. What is more, it seemed to me inaccurate, as well, to say that "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution," for a significant portion of the populace is now exceedingly mistrustful of the idea of a Palestinian state.
It is the Olmert government, with disregard for public will, that promotes a "two-state solution." I saw the whitewash of Abbas in this report as serving the ideological goals of Olmert, while failing to address the reality of Fatah as a terror organization. This from an organization that purports to provide "accurate information." And so, I wrote to Calev Ben David, who is director of TIP's Jerusalem office. And I said, "The proper title for a report of yours would be 'Israel is prepared for peace negotiations when a true partner emerges.' "I know you're toeing the line of the Israeli government, but you are doing the people of Israel a disservice, in my opinion, by not being more forthright regarding the situation. We are at a critical juncture now?with regard to the long term security of Israel and concessions that may be demanded of us that put us at existential risk." In replying, Ben David wrote, "You are right: TIP is following after the policy of the democratically-elected government. "?If this government -- or the next one -- decides that Abbas is not a suitable figure to dialogue with, rest assured that we will be on the front line of explaining why he isn't." So it's clear where TIP is coming from. Ben David was describing the approach of the current government: As long as we intend to engage with Abbas, there's no need to explain why his terrorist connections make him an unsuitable candidate for dialogue. It is also clear where Greenberg is coming from.
In the fall of 2005, TIP held a press conference in Jerusalem featuring his most recently completed poll. Greenberg provided figures that purportedly demonstrated that the American public's approval of Israel increased after the (then) recently completed disengagement from Gaza. The implied message here was that the Sharon government had done a good thing to pull people out of Gush Katif, as it enhanced Israel's international standing. I was present, and may have been the only one there who caught the bias in Greenberg's polling technique. He explained that for purposes of the poll they sought persons knowledgeable about the issues -- people who read the NY Times or watch CNN. But these media sources are left-wing and obviously touted the disengagement as a good thing! Not a word about people who watch Fox news, or read the Washington Times, or the NY Sun. Not a word about striking a balance. A population skewed to the left had been polled. But in any event, the underlying premise was wrong: That the correctness of a policy can be determined by polling international public opinion. Which brings us to the current situation: Israel wages a constant uphill public relations battle. And so it is understandable that Israeli officials might be eager to secure favorable opinion ratings in the US. But the current practice of receiving "advice" on what would increase favorable opinion is a disaster. It promotes an approach that is precisely the inverse of what should be taking place.
An autonomous nation cannot responsibly determine its own most appropriate course of action by shaping it in accordance with what would please an international public. Yet this is what seems to be happening. Not only are we witnessing the phenomenon of a pollster "making recommendations" to Israel's legislators, we must keep in mind that this pollster, commissioned by TIP, has an agenda, as is perhaps inevitable. In delivering his message -- "It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace" -- Greenberg is setting the ground for the Olmert approach to continued talks with Abbas. You want the world to like you? You must show good faith by doing this. It's what they are looking for. Imagine if Greenberg had done a very different poll and had come to tell the Knesset, for example, that the American public is afraid of Islamists and respects those who stand strong against them, or that a majority of Americans think Abbas is not a fit partner for peace. Perhaps these things are true. If Greenberg has polled Americans on these issues, he isn't telling us. And he certainly isn't delivering a message that strengthens Israel's resolve against terrorists.
A nation with a healthy respect for its own legitimate rights and needs, instead of attempting to devise policy to fit public opinion, would take a very different approach: Yes, we hope the world will like us, but first we must shape policies that are warranted and in the national best interest. Does this wipe away the need for a strong public relations effort? Not at all. Instead it assigns the appropriate ancillary role to public relations (and polling procedures). That role is an important one: Making the case for Israel and her policy decisions, and making certain that the message is being assimilated and properly understood. There is no lack of work to be done in this regard. The Western world simply does not get it, in good measure because it not being given the facts: - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is existential and not about borders. - Fatah has terrorist connections. - A strong Israel advances American interests. - Iran already has influence with Palestinian groups in the West Bank. - Conciliation is interpreted by the Arabs as weakness. - If Israel is diminished, the Islamists will be emboldened. - Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not reduce tensions elsewhere in the Mid-East. These are messages that the Olmert government, for its own reasons, is not delivering. How different Israel's public relations situation might be if they were delivered.
Appeared first in Israel Insider
See Arlene's wesite: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Conclusion
Part 7
The deployment of thousands of international forces in Lebanon, in addition to 15,000 Lebanese troops, will encourage Iran to continue to penetrate the Palestinian Authority, where its increased influence will act as an enhanced terror lever against Israel and the West as Tehran pursues its nuclear ambitions.
Iran will also exploit its influence via Hizbullah and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza to encourage terror activities against conservative, pro-Western Sunni regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the PA's current Fatah leadership.
But threats against these regimes, stemming from both Iranian- and al-Qaeda-backed radical Islamic groups in Gaza and the West Bank, may also signal an important opportunity for new regional alliances to manage the destabilizing Jihadi threats. Egypt should now consider playing a much larger role in helping to stabilize Gaza's future, while the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan may, under certain conditions, help Abbas and other moderate leaders secure the West Bank from its current control by Jihadi groups, local warlords and armed militias. The two sides might also discuss deeper cooperation and even mutually acceptable future political arrangements.
Despite the temptation, the international community must be careful not to interpret every "smile" from the Hamas leadership as a sign of moderation and compromise. Hamas' diplomatic shrewdness indicates that it can and will exhibit tactical flexibility, which is part of its deception of negotiating a national unity government with Fatah and keeping its terror activities in temporary check while pursuing its long-term goal – the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state from "the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." In the short term, Hamas will likely continue to receive support from Iran and other Jihadis in targeting Americans in the region due to fury over the U.S. boycott of the radical Palestinian government.47 Despite the interest by some in international circles to try and "tame" or moderate Hamas, those same actors who failed to tame Arafat will not be able to transform Hamas into a viable peace partner and a constructive force for regional stability.
The international community should not fear the collapse of the PA. The experience of Israel's security operations in recent years shows that Palestinian society will not collapse – as the word is commonly interpreted – even under extreme conditions. Palestinian municipalities, for example, continued to operate and provide services even at the height of Israeli military actions against the PA following the Palestinian war of terror and particularly during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.
Iran is clearly the most ominous issue for the West. Operating under a nuclear umbrella, the Iranian regime's upgraded use of its international terror networks via Hizbullah and Palestinian Jihadi groups could threaten the region with "dirty," non-conventional weapons and more blatantly dare to attack Western targets. That is why Israel must maintain defensible borders in the West Bank and remind its Western allies that diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines or to approximate borders would leave Israel's major cities and infrastructure vulnerable to rocket and mortar attacks from West Bank hilltops.
Israel is clearly not the only country on Iran's target list. There is no arguing the fact that Iran also threatens Europe. Hopefully, the United States and the international community will act determinedly against Iran, first by political and financial sanctions, and if necessary by decisive military action.
As U.S. Senator John McCain has said, there is only one option that is worse than using military force against Iran. That option is allowing Iran to achieve regional hegemony, and ultimately global power, under a nuclear umbrella. Only when Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies are squarely defeated can both the Middle East and the West hope to achieve a more peaceful and stable future.
Conclusion
Part 7
The deployment of thousands of international forces in Lebanon, in addition to 15,000 Lebanese troops, will encourage Iran to continue to penetrate the Palestinian Authority, where its increased influence will act as an enhanced terror lever against Israel and the West as Tehran pursues its nuclear ambitions.
Iran will also exploit its influence via Hizbullah and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza to encourage terror activities against conservative, pro-Western Sunni regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the PA's current Fatah leadership.
But threats against these regimes, stemming from both Iranian- and al-Qaeda-backed radical Islamic groups in Gaza and the West Bank, may also signal an important opportunity for new regional alliances to manage the destabilizing Jihadi threats. Egypt should now consider playing a much larger role in helping to stabilize Gaza's future, while the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan may, under certain conditions, help Abbas and other moderate leaders secure the West Bank from its current control by Jihadi groups, local warlords and armed militias. The two sides might also discuss deeper cooperation and even mutually acceptable future political arrangements.
Despite the temptation, the international community must be careful not to interpret every "smile" from the Hamas leadership as a sign of moderation and compromise. Hamas' diplomatic shrewdness indicates that it can and will exhibit tactical flexibility, which is part of its deception of negotiating a national unity government with Fatah and keeping its terror activities in temporary check while pursuing its long-term goal – the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state from "the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." In the short term, Hamas will likely continue to receive support from Iran and other Jihadis in targeting Americans in the region due to fury over the U.S. boycott of the radical Palestinian government.47 Despite the interest by some in international circles to try and "tame" or moderate Hamas, those same actors who failed to tame Arafat will not be able to transform Hamas into a viable peace partner and a constructive force for regional stability.
The international community should not fear the collapse of the PA. The experience of Israel's security operations in recent years shows that Palestinian society will not collapse – as the word is commonly interpreted – even under extreme conditions. Palestinian municipalities, for example, continued to operate and provide services even at the height of Israeli military actions against the PA following the Palestinian war of terror and particularly during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.
Iran is clearly the most ominous issue for the West. Operating under a nuclear umbrella, the Iranian regime's upgraded use of its international terror networks via Hizbullah and Palestinian Jihadi groups could threaten the region with "dirty," non-conventional weapons and more blatantly dare to attack Western targets. That is why Israel must maintain defensible borders in the West Bank and remind its Western allies that diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines or to approximate borders would leave Israel's major cities and infrastructure vulnerable to rocket and mortar attacks from West Bank hilltops.
Israel is clearly not the only country on Iran's target list. There is no arguing the fact that Iran also threatens Europe. Hopefully, the United States and the international community will act determinedly against Iran, first by political and financial sanctions, and if necessary by decisive military action.
As U.S. Senator John McCain has said, there is only one option that is worse than using military force against Iran. That option is allowing Iran to achieve regional hegemony, and ultimately global power, under a nuclear umbrella. Only when Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies are squarely defeated can both the Middle East and the West hope to achieve a more peaceful and stable future.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Security Implications for Israel: Establishing Defensible Borders
Part 6
The Second Lebanon War underscores the importance of strategic depth for Israel's survival. During the war, 90 to 95 percent of the more than four thousand rockets firedbyHizbullahatIsraelicitieswereshort-range,122 mm rockets launched from distances of between six and twenty-two kilometers. These short-range rockets directly threatened nearly two million Israelis, a third of Israel's population. Nearly a million people temporarily fled the north, while more than a million remaining citizens were forced to take cover in bomb shelters. Twelve thousand buildings were hit and estimates of overall damage reached well over $2.5 billion. However, had Israel's ground operation been executed in the first week of the war and a security zone created up to Lebanon's Litani River – approximately twenty kilometers from Israel's northern border – nearly 95 percent of Hizbullah's rockets would have landed in southern Lebanon and not northern Israel.
The conclusion is clear: land is essential to Israel's defense and national security, particularly in the face of short-range rocket attacks that, notwithstanding the separate issue of long-range missiles, continue to be a strategic threat to the Jewish state.
Therefore, Israel's security requirements for strategic depth have far-reaching consequences for the future of the West Bank. Had Hizbullah rockets been launched from the hills of the West Bank under Hamas control, Israel would face an unprecedented existential threat as 70 percent of its civilian population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity is situated below these hilltops along Israel's coastline. Unfortunately, Hamas' control of the Palestinian areas, particularly in the West Bank, could easily result in weapons flowing to Hamas from Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon, creating a strategic threat from Israel's eastern front. Given the unstable strategic situation in Lebanon and to Israel's east in Iraq, Syria and the West Bank, Israel must have defensible borders in the West Bank.
It must be emphasized that the West Bank security fence is not a strategic solution to the full range of Palestinian Jihadi terror actions. The fence is only meant to be a tactical measure that has largely succeeded in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israel's major population centers. However, the IDF's anti-terror operations on the ground in the West Bank and against Hamas in Gaza continue to be the major preventative measure against Palestinian terror assaults on Israeli towns and cities. Accordingly, Israel must protect its interests eastward in the Jordan Valley, as well as in the areas surrounding Jerusalem and to the east of Ben-Gurion Airport. Israel must also control territory to the east of the security fence where it is crucial that the IDF's operational strength be preserved in order to protect Israeli population centers along the coast.
Hamas will not reach a territorial compromise with Israel. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has little control. Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal determines policy from Damascus in cooperation with Syria and Iran, which offer financial backing. Moreover, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is unable to rein in radical Islamists in Gaza who are attacking Israel with Kassam rockets, and Palestinian security forces have failed to stabilize the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.
Therefore, a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not with insight and neither a two-state solution nor further territorial concessions in the West Bank are relevant for the foreseeable future. Israel took substantial risks to achieve a two-state solution, especially since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Unfortunately, Israel's bilateral peace process experiment resulted in nearly 1,400 Israelis dead and thousands more wounded. It is imperative, then, that Israel and the West learn the lessons of the political and diplomatic failures opposite the Palestinians.
While Israel's political leadership and public continue to demonstrate willingness for territorial compromise with the Palestinians, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a strategic mistake of the first order. The Gaza withdrawal helped bring about Hamas' victory. It emboldened radical Islamic terror groups, from Hizbullah in Lebanon to radical insurgent groups in Iraq. It strengthened the assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Iranians that Israel can be beaten.
But of even greater consequence, Israel's Gaza pullback and the summer 2006 war with Hizbullah have harmed America's strategic war on terror in the region. The United States and Europe had praised Israel's unilateral withdrawal from both Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza Strip in September 2005, thus ending Israel's occupation of those areas. According to the international view, Israel's pullbacks edged the region closer to peace and stability. However, fundamentalist Islam interprets Israel's moves differently from the way Western actors read them. Muslim extremists believe that they have defeated Israel, once in Gaza and twice in Lebanon. Now following the summer 2006 war, they are confident that they can defeat Israel in Tel Aviv. They sense that they have destabilized a superpower, and will destabilize the West by defeating Israel.
The free world, then, undermines its own regional interests by pressuring Israel to increase its vulnerability by withdrawing from additional territories in the West Bank, most of which are unpopulated and essential for Israel's defense and national security. Simply stated, Israeli concessions are viewed by radical Islam as the West's weakness.
There is even greater reason for concern today. A second "southern Lebanon" is sprouting up under Israel's feet in both Gaza and the West Bank.41 Hizbullah has strengthened its financial and operational influence in both arenas. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, Gaza has become a hotbed of Jihadi terror activity by al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Hizbullah established a forward headquarters in Gaza that activates suicide terrorists there and in the West Bank. While Hizbullah's headquarters has been based in Beirut, since the IDF's destruction of substantial Hizbullah infrastructure in southern Lebanon and in the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, Hizbullah operations from Gaza have become a more effective strategy. It is not surprising that Palestinian terrorist tactics after mid-2006 increasingly resembled those adopted by Hizbullah. In fact, a large majority of Palestinians polled after the Lebanon war reported that the tactics employed by Hizbullah against Israel provide an "attractive model" for Palestinian armed resistance.
Iran is also exploiting the Palestinian arena as a platform for the subversion of regimes that are connected to the West, especially in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia led unprecedented Arab public criticism of Hizbullah after the first week of the war, blasting Nasrallah for "adventurism." They accused Hizbullah of attempting to drag the entire region into a military confrontation with Israel.
Hamas is also seeking to produce or import longer-range rockets that are more lethal and more accurate. These missiles will have a greater range and will be capable of hitting Israel's southern city of Ashkelon as well as more northern coastal cities. Hamas is also importing shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, weapons that Iran and Syria supplied to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Karine-A weapons ship that the Iranians sent to Gaza in 2002, in coordination with PA leader Yasser Arafat, demonstrated more than simply an Iranian interest in supporting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist war with Iranian weapons. The Iranians have been working through Hizbullah and Hamas in Gaza to create a model similar to Hizbullah's Lebanon model, called "Jihad Il Binaya." In the Lebanese model, the same system that supports civil affairs – such as construction, education, health care and welfare – also creates a civilian infrastructure for terror. Through this paradigm, Hizbullah has deepened its connection to the local population. In fact, Hamas police units traveled to Iran for military training following the cease-fire in Lebanon. This unprecedented, direct Iranian penetration into the Palestinian arena may increase the likelihood of a Palestinian civil war and accelerate the deterioration in Gaza and the West Bank.
Security Implications for Israel: Establishing Defensible Borders
Part 6
The Second Lebanon War underscores the importance of strategic depth for Israel's survival. During the war, 90 to 95 percent of the more than four thousand rockets firedbyHizbullahatIsraelicitieswereshort-range,122 mm rockets launched from distances of between six and twenty-two kilometers. These short-range rockets directly threatened nearly two million Israelis, a third of Israel's population. Nearly a million people temporarily fled the north, while more than a million remaining citizens were forced to take cover in bomb shelters. Twelve thousand buildings were hit and estimates of overall damage reached well over $2.5 billion. However, had Israel's ground operation been executed in the first week of the war and a security zone created up to Lebanon's Litani River – approximately twenty kilometers from Israel's northern border – nearly 95 percent of Hizbullah's rockets would have landed in southern Lebanon and not northern Israel.
The conclusion is clear: land is essential to Israel's defense and national security, particularly in the face of short-range rocket attacks that, notwithstanding the separate issue of long-range missiles, continue to be a strategic threat to the Jewish state.
Therefore, Israel's security requirements for strategic depth have far-reaching consequences for the future of the West Bank. Had Hizbullah rockets been launched from the hills of the West Bank under Hamas control, Israel would face an unprecedented existential threat as 70 percent of its civilian population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity is situated below these hilltops along Israel's coastline. Unfortunately, Hamas' control of the Palestinian areas, particularly in the West Bank, could easily result in weapons flowing to Hamas from Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon, creating a strategic threat from Israel's eastern front. Given the unstable strategic situation in Lebanon and to Israel's east in Iraq, Syria and the West Bank, Israel must have defensible borders in the West Bank.
It must be emphasized that the West Bank security fence is not a strategic solution to the full range of Palestinian Jihadi terror actions. The fence is only meant to be a tactical measure that has largely succeeded in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israel's major population centers. However, the IDF's anti-terror operations on the ground in the West Bank and against Hamas in Gaza continue to be the major preventative measure against Palestinian terror assaults on Israeli towns and cities. Accordingly, Israel must protect its interests eastward in the Jordan Valley, as well as in the areas surrounding Jerusalem and to the east of Ben-Gurion Airport. Israel must also control territory to the east of the security fence where it is crucial that the IDF's operational strength be preserved in order to protect Israeli population centers along the coast.
Hamas will not reach a territorial compromise with Israel. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has little control. Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal determines policy from Damascus in cooperation with Syria and Iran, which offer financial backing. Moreover, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is unable to rein in radical Islamists in Gaza who are attacking Israel with Kassam rockets, and Palestinian security forces have failed to stabilize the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.
Therefore, a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not with insight and neither a two-state solution nor further territorial concessions in the West Bank are relevant for the foreseeable future. Israel took substantial risks to achieve a two-state solution, especially since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Unfortunately, Israel's bilateral peace process experiment resulted in nearly 1,400 Israelis dead and thousands more wounded. It is imperative, then, that Israel and the West learn the lessons of the political and diplomatic failures opposite the Palestinians.
While Israel's political leadership and public continue to demonstrate willingness for territorial compromise with the Palestinians, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a strategic mistake of the first order. The Gaza withdrawal helped bring about Hamas' victory. It emboldened radical Islamic terror groups, from Hizbullah in Lebanon to radical insurgent groups in Iraq. It strengthened the assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Iranians that Israel can be beaten.
But of even greater consequence, Israel's Gaza pullback and the summer 2006 war with Hizbullah have harmed America's strategic war on terror in the region. The United States and Europe had praised Israel's unilateral withdrawal from both Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza Strip in September 2005, thus ending Israel's occupation of those areas. According to the international view, Israel's pullbacks edged the region closer to peace and stability. However, fundamentalist Islam interprets Israel's moves differently from the way Western actors read them. Muslim extremists believe that they have defeated Israel, once in Gaza and twice in Lebanon. Now following the summer 2006 war, they are confident that they can defeat Israel in Tel Aviv. They sense that they have destabilized a superpower, and will destabilize the West by defeating Israel.
The free world, then, undermines its own regional interests by pressuring Israel to increase its vulnerability by withdrawing from additional territories in the West Bank, most of which are unpopulated and essential for Israel's defense and national security. Simply stated, Israeli concessions are viewed by radical Islam as the West's weakness.
There is even greater reason for concern today. A second "southern Lebanon" is sprouting up under Israel's feet in both Gaza and the West Bank.41 Hizbullah has strengthened its financial and operational influence in both arenas. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, Gaza has become a hotbed of Jihadi terror activity by al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Hizbullah established a forward headquarters in Gaza that activates suicide terrorists there and in the West Bank. While Hizbullah's headquarters has been based in Beirut, since the IDF's destruction of substantial Hizbullah infrastructure in southern Lebanon and in the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, Hizbullah operations from Gaza have become a more effective strategy. It is not surprising that Palestinian terrorist tactics after mid-2006 increasingly resembled those adopted by Hizbullah. In fact, a large majority of Palestinians polled after the Lebanon war reported that the tactics employed by Hizbullah against Israel provide an "attractive model" for Palestinian armed resistance.
Iran is also exploiting the Palestinian arena as a platform for the subversion of regimes that are connected to the West, especially in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia led unprecedented Arab public criticism of Hizbullah after the first week of the war, blasting Nasrallah for "adventurism." They accused Hizbullah of attempting to drag the entire region into a military confrontation with Israel.
Hamas is also seeking to produce or import longer-range rockets that are more lethal and more accurate. These missiles will have a greater range and will be capable of hitting Israel's southern city of Ashkelon as well as more northern coastal cities. Hamas is also importing shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, weapons that Iran and Syria supplied to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Karine-A weapons ship that the Iranians sent to Gaza in 2002, in coordination with PA leader Yasser Arafat, demonstrated more than simply an Iranian interest in supporting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist war with Iranian weapons. The Iranians have been working through Hizbullah and Hamas in Gaza to create a model similar to Hizbullah's Lebanon model, called "Jihad Il Binaya." In the Lebanese model, the same system that supports civil affairs – such as construction, education, health care and welfare – also creates a civilian infrastructure for terror. Through this paradigm, Hizbullah has deepened its connection to the local population. In fact, Hamas police units traveled to Iran for military training following the cease-fire in Lebanon. This unprecedented, direct Iranian penetration into the Palestinian arena may increase the likelihood of a Palestinian civil war and accelerate the deterioration in Gaza and the West Bank.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Western Passivity Magnifies the Jihadi Threat
Part 5
The international community is weak and split over how to proceed in Iraq and against Iran. This may in part be a result of the fact that many European countries do not understand that the West is in the middle of a world war, a clash of civilizations and cultures with radical Islam. Ahmadinejad has been clearer on this point. He reportedly received one of 1,000 pirated copies of Professor Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations that had been translated into Persian and trucked in to Tehran by the IRGC in the mid-1990s.
Washington also appears to have lost its post-9/11 footing. The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report seems to underscore a growing preference among many in Washington for appeasing and negotiating over confronting and isolating the radical Islamists, particularly in Iran. The report's central recommendations that the Bush administration open diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran and actively pursue comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace negotiations – including Israel's return of the Golan Heights to Syria – represents a 180-degree-turn away from President Bush's policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bush had declared in his 2002 State of the Union address that "some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will....If we stop now – leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked – our sense of security would be false and temporary."
Another example of the West's traditional preference for diplomacy and Israeli concessions over confrontation with radical Islam occurred in late 2001. Joschka Fischer, then Foreign Minister of Germany, stated on at least one occasion that Israel's unilateral and precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 served as a trigger for the subsequent Palestinian Authority war of terror that Arafat launched four months later. But while Fischer acknowledged the problem and even sounded like "an Israeli security hawk," according to a senior British foreign policy analyst present, he did not recant the pressure he placed on Israel for territorial concessions.
Aside from the Second Lebanon War, Israel has been hesitant to confront Iran and Syria. It had been much easier for Israelis to first confront and then negotiate with secular Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan, and reach bilateral peace treaties on the basis of the "land for peace" formula. However, in the case of Iran and its Jihadi proxies, Israel faces uncompromising enemies. This requires the Jewish state to confront the Jihadi threat and act with uncompromising political will.
Hizbullah is not nearly as dangerous a fighting forceas Egypt or Syria. However, the fundamentalist group's blind hatred of the West and its irrepressible political will to destroy Israel and export terror renders it largely immune from embracing what moderate and reform-minded Arab regimes and the West consider overriding national considerations such as economic interests. Iran and its proxies are not primarily motivated by the same national calculations characteristic of the West, but rather by religiously driven, apocalyptic dedication to vanquish Western democracies such as the United States and Israel. Therefore, conventional deterrence strategies such as "mutually assured destruction" that the United States employed opposite the former Soviet Union are not relevant opposite the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad appears more than prepared for Iran to suffer massive human losses to reach his objective of annihilating Israel and reaching a nuclear showdown with the United States.
Nonetheless, the passive posture of the United States, Europe, and even Israel, with regard to Iran, Syria, and their proxies has bolstered Jihadi confidence and has magnified their growing threat to the international state system. The West's interest in maintaining the current international order and avoiding a clash with radical Islamic leaderships has also enhanced Sunni and Shiite Jihadi appeal throughout the region, from Iraq to Jordan, in Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt and the West Bank.
Part 5
The international community is weak and split over how to proceed in Iraq and against Iran. This may in part be a result of the fact that many European countries do not understand that the West is in the middle of a world war, a clash of civilizations and cultures with radical Islam. Ahmadinejad has been clearer on this point. He reportedly received one of 1,000 pirated copies of Professor Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations that had been translated into Persian and trucked in to Tehran by the IRGC in the mid-1990s.
Washington also appears to have lost its post-9/11 footing. The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report seems to underscore a growing preference among many in Washington for appeasing and negotiating over confronting and isolating the radical Islamists, particularly in Iran. The report's central recommendations that the Bush administration open diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran and actively pursue comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace negotiations – including Israel's return of the Golan Heights to Syria – represents a 180-degree-turn away from President Bush's policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bush had declared in his 2002 State of the Union address that "some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will....If we stop now – leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked – our sense of security would be false and temporary."
Another example of the West's traditional preference for diplomacy and Israeli concessions over confrontation with radical Islam occurred in late 2001. Joschka Fischer, then Foreign Minister of Germany, stated on at least one occasion that Israel's unilateral and precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 served as a trigger for the subsequent Palestinian Authority war of terror that Arafat launched four months later. But while Fischer acknowledged the problem and even sounded like "an Israeli security hawk," according to a senior British foreign policy analyst present, he did not recant the pressure he placed on Israel for territorial concessions.
Aside from the Second Lebanon War, Israel has been hesitant to confront Iran and Syria. It had been much easier for Israelis to first confront and then negotiate with secular Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan, and reach bilateral peace treaties on the basis of the "land for peace" formula. However, in the case of Iran and its Jihadi proxies, Israel faces uncompromising enemies. This requires the Jewish state to confront the Jihadi threat and act with uncompromising political will.
Hizbullah is not nearly as dangerous a fighting forceas Egypt or Syria. However, the fundamentalist group's blind hatred of the West and its irrepressible political will to destroy Israel and export terror renders it largely immune from embracing what moderate and reform-minded Arab regimes and the West consider overriding national considerations such as economic interests. Iran and its proxies are not primarily motivated by the same national calculations characteristic of the West, but rather by religiously driven, apocalyptic dedication to vanquish Western democracies such as the United States and Israel. Therefore, conventional deterrence strategies such as "mutually assured destruction" that the United States employed opposite the former Soviet Union are not relevant opposite the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad appears more than prepared for Iran to suffer massive human losses to reach his objective of annihilating Israel and reaching a nuclear showdown with the United States.
Nonetheless, the passive posture of the United States, Europe, and even Israel, with regard to Iran, Syria, and their proxies has bolstered Jihadi confidence and has magnified their growing threat to the international state system. The West's interest in maintaining the current international order and avoiding a clash with radical Islamic leaderships has also enhanced Sunni and Shiite Jihadi appeal throughout the region, from Iraq to Jordan, in Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt and the West Bank.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Hag Sameach
Lecha Dodi
As he left the shul, he noticed a young man wearing jeans and a backpack, standing tentatively at the foot of the steps. Inspired by the meaningful Kabbalas Shabbos he had just experienced, he decided to greet the young man. "Good Shabbos. Would you like to eat with us tonight?" The young man's face broke in an instant from a worried look to a smile. "Yes, thanks, he said, My name is Machi."
Soon they were standing around the Shabbos table. Dan noticed his guest fidgeting and leafing through his bencher, looking for something. "Is there a song you want to sing he asked. The young man’s face lit up. "Yes, there is, but I can't find it here. I really liked what we sang earlier. What was it?...Something 'Dodi Oh, he offered, "You mean Lecha Dodi But you won’t find it in there. Let me get you a siddur." Upon the song’s completion, Machi requested the song yet again. Throughout the meal, he repeatedly requested the song, Dan acceding each time to his guest’s request, his puzzlement increasing. "Don't you want to sing something else?" he finally asked. "I just really like that one," Machi replied bashfully. "There’s just something about it - I really like it."
"Where are you from?" Dan asked. The boy looked pained, then gazed at the floor and said, "Ramallah." Dan was quite sure he'd heard the boy say Ramallah, but it couldn’t be. Perhaps he had actually heard Ramleh, an Israeli city. To this he replied, "Oh, I have a cousin there. Do you know Ephraim Warner? He lives on Herzl Street." The young man shook his head sadly. "There are no Jews in Ramallah." Dan gasped. He really had said "Ramallah"! His mind raced. Had he invited an Arab to spend Shabbos with him? "I'm sorry, he exclaimed, but I'm a bit confused. And now that I think of it, I haven't even asked your full name." The boy nervously shook his head and offered quietly, "Machmud Ibn-esh-Sharif." Dan slumped back, speechless. Machi broke the silence hesitantly, "I was born and grew up in Ramallah. I was taught to hate Jews, and that killing them was heroic. But I always had doubts. Our tradition taught us that believers should desire for others what they desire for themselves. I used to wonder, aren’t Jews people too? Don’t they have the right to live as well? I asked my father, and he threw me out of the house. By now my mind was made up; I was going to run away and live with Jews, until I could find out what they were really like. Who knows? I might even convert. I snuck back into the house that night to get my things, but my mother noticed me packing. When I had conveyed my plans to her, she turned pale. You don't have to convert, she whispered after a long pause, You already are a Jew. "I was shocked. What do you mean? Judaism follows the mother, she explained. I'm Jewish, so you're Jewish. "I never had any idea my mother was Jewish. She didn’t want anyone to know. Then she whispered suddenly, 'I made a mistake by marrying an Arab man. In you, my mistake will be redeemed.'
My mother quickly went, dug out some old documents and handed them to me - my birth certificate and her old Israeli ID card, so I could prove I was a Jew. I've got them here, but I don't know what to do with them. She also handed me an old photograph of my grandparents that was taken at the grave of one of our ancestors. Now I’ve traveled here to Israel to find out where I really belong." Dan gently put his hand on Machmud's shoulder and asked, "Do you have the photo here?" "Sure, he said, I always carry it with me." Machmud reached into his backpack and pulled out the photograph. When Dan saw the photograph, he nearly collapsed. It was of a grave in the old cemetery in Tzfat, the inscription identifying it as that of the great Kabbalist Rav Shlomo Alkabetz. Dan's voice quivered with excitement and awe as he explained to Machmud who his ancestor was. "He was a friend of the Arizal, a great Torah scholar, a tzaddik, a mystic. And, Machmud, your ancestor is the author of that song we sang tonight, Lecha Dodi!" This time Machmud was speechless. Dan extended his trembling hand, "Welcome home, Machmud."
Machmud had unwittingly traced his roots back to a man whose early years remain shrouded in history until the age of 24, when he traveled for the first time to Eretz Yisrael. Along the way, he gave charismatic speeches, inspiring his audiences with his knowledge of Kabbalah. He soon met Yosef Caro, and became his close friend and chavrusa, along with the Arizal and the Alshich HaKadosh. It was from one of their shared spiritual experiences while learning late one night that R Yosef Caro reestablished the custom of Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot (mentioned in the Zohar), which we perpetuate today. R’Shlomo produced manuscripts on Torah and Kabbalah, many of which were stolen upon his death and therefore never published under his name. He is credited with initiating the ritual of physically greeting the shechina, or neshoma yesairah at shkiah on Friday. After Minchah, as the sun cast its setting rays over the distant hilltops, this saintly mystic and his disciples would venture out onto one of Tzfat’s magnificent slopes. Gazing out upon plunging ravines and soaring heights, they would open their hearts in song as the sunset swelled into a cadence of changing colors. The haunting beauty of this liturgical mosaic, pieced together with phrases from Shoftim, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and Tehillim, whose stanzas mostly reflect the Jewish longing for redemption, the restoration of Yerushalayim and the coming of Mashiach, tugs at the heart strings of every Jew who longs for closeness to his creator. Its expression during this most propitious ays ratzon, when Klal Yisrael weds HaKadosh Boruch Hu on a weekly basis, was specifically designed by R’Shlomo to open our hearts, if only for a moment, to the faint emanations of Olam Habah which reach our world at this time.
R’Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz is remembered for his authorship of Lecha Dodi, and it is precisely this hymn which affords us a unique look inside a world in which he represented so much more. For the world of Kabbalah, in which physical and spiritual boundaries are routinely blurred, finds prime expression in this moving elegy which has the power to change and improve our spiritual lives so many years after its authorship, and which succeeded in returning R’Shlomo’s great grandson Machmud back under the Kanfei HaShechinah. So as you sing Lecha Dodi this Friday evening, listen a bit more closely, and you’ll understand that it is much more than just a song. You just may recognize it as the voice of your own soul, crying out to its creator, yearning for the Shechinah, for now you’ll know THE REST OF THE STORY.
From the Adult Education Committee of Congregation Beth Abraham's Be'er Mayim Chaim Teaneck
As he left the shul, he noticed a young man wearing jeans and a backpack, standing tentatively at the foot of the steps. Inspired by the meaningful Kabbalas Shabbos he had just experienced, he decided to greet the young man. "Good Shabbos. Would you like to eat with us tonight?" The young man's face broke in an instant from a worried look to a smile. "Yes, thanks, he said, My name is Machi."
Soon they were standing around the Shabbos table. Dan noticed his guest fidgeting and leafing through his bencher, looking for something. "Is there a song you want to sing he asked. The young man’s face lit up. "Yes, there is, but I can't find it here. I really liked what we sang earlier. What was it?...Something 'Dodi Oh, he offered, "You mean Lecha Dodi But you won’t find it in there. Let me get you a siddur." Upon the song’s completion, Machi requested the song yet again. Throughout the meal, he repeatedly requested the song, Dan acceding each time to his guest’s request, his puzzlement increasing. "Don't you want to sing something else?" he finally asked. "I just really like that one," Machi replied bashfully. "There’s just something about it - I really like it."
"Where are you from?" Dan asked. The boy looked pained, then gazed at the floor and said, "Ramallah." Dan was quite sure he'd heard the boy say Ramallah, but it couldn’t be. Perhaps he had actually heard Ramleh, an Israeli city. To this he replied, "Oh, I have a cousin there. Do you know Ephraim Warner? He lives on Herzl Street." The young man shook his head sadly. "There are no Jews in Ramallah." Dan gasped. He really had said "Ramallah"! His mind raced. Had he invited an Arab to spend Shabbos with him? "I'm sorry, he exclaimed, but I'm a bit confused. And now that I think of it, I haven't even asked your full name." The boy nervously shook his head and offered quietly, "Machmud Ibn-esh-Sharif." Dan slumped back, speechless. Machi broke the silence hesitantly, "I was born and grew up in Ramallah. I was taught to hate Jews, and that killing them was heroic. But I always had doubts. Our tradition taught us that believers should desire for others what they desire for themselves. I used to wonder, aren’t Jews people too? Don’t they have the right to live as well? I asked my father, and he threw me out of the house. By now my mind was made up; I was going to run away and live with Jews, until I could find out what they were really like. Who knows? I might even convert. I snuck back into the house that night to get my things, but my mother noticed me packing. When I had conveyed my plans to her, she turned pale. You don't have to convert, she whispered after a long pause, You already are a Jew. "I was shocked. What do you mean? Judaism follows the mother, she explained. I'm Jewish, so you're Jewish. "I never had any idea my mother was Jewish. She didn’t want anyone to know. Then she whispered suddenly, 'I made a mistake by marrying an Arab man. In you, my mistake will be redeemed.'
My mother quickly went, dug out some old documents and handed them to me - my birth certificate and her old Israeli ID card, so I could prove I was a Jew. I've got them here, but I don't know what to do with them. She also handed me an old photograph of my grandparents that was taken at the grave of one of our ancestors. Now I’ve traveled here to Israel to find out where I really belong." Dan gently put his hand on Machmud's shoulder and asked, "Do you have the photo here?" "Sure, he said, I always carry it with me." Machmud reached into his backpack and pulled out the photograph. When Dan saw the photograph, he nearly collapsed. It was of a grave in the old cemetery in Tzfat, the inscription identifying it as that of the great Kabbalist Rav Shlomo Alkabetz. Dan's voice quivered with excitement and awe as he explained to Machmud who his ancestor was. "He was a friend of the Arizal, a great Torah scholar, a tzaddik, a mystic. And, Machmud, your ancestor is the author of that song we sang tonight, Lecha Dodi!" This time Machmud was speechless. Dan extended his trembling hand, "Welcome home, Machmud."
Machmud had unwittingly traced his roots back to a man whose early years remain shrouded in history until the age of 24, when he traveled for the first time to Eretz Yisrael. Along the way, he gave charismatic speeches, inspiring his audiences with his knowledge of Kabbalah. He soon met Yosef Caro, and became his close friend and chavrusa, along with the Arizal and the Alshich HaKadosh. It was from one of their shared spiritual experiences while learning late one night that R Yosef Caro reestablished the custom of Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot (mentioned in the Zohar), which we perpetuate today. R’Shlomo produced manuscripts on Torah and Kabbalah, many of which were stolen upon his death and therefore never published under his name. He is credited with initiating the ritual of physically greeting the shechina, or neshoma yesairah at shkiah on Friday. After Minchah, as the sun cast its setting rays over the distant hilltops, this saintly mystic and his disciples would venture out onto one of Tzfat’s magnificent slopes. Gazing out upon plunging ravines and soaring heights, they would open their hearts in song as the sunset swelled into a cadence of changing colors. The haunting beauty of this liturgical mosaic, pieced together with phrases from Shoftim, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and Tehillim, whose stanzas mostly reflect the Jewish longing for redemption, the restoration of Yerushalayim and the coming of Mashiach, tugs at the heart strings of every Jew who longs for closeness to his creator. Its expression during this most propitious ays ratzon, when Klal Yisrael weds HaKadosh Boruch Hu on a weekly basis, was specifically designed by R’Shlomo to open our hearts, if only for a moment, to the faint emanations of Olam Habah which reach our world at this time.
R’Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz is remembered for his authorship of Lecha Dodi, and it is precisely this hymn which affords us a unique look inside a world in which he represented so much more. For the world of Kabbalah, in which physical and spiritual boundaries are routinely blurred, finds prime expression in this moving elegy which has the power to change and improve our spiritual lives so many years after its authorship, and which succeeded in returning R’Shlomo’s great grandson Machmud back under the Kanfei HaShechinah. So as you sing Lecha Dodi this Friday evening, listen a bit more closely, and you’ll understand that it is much more than just a song. You just may recognize it as the voice of your own soul, crying out to its creator, yearning for the Shechinah, for now you’ll know THE REST OF THE STORY.
From the Adult Education Committee of Congregation Beth Abraham's Be'er Mayim Chaim Teaneck
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Part 4
The Spread of Iranian and Syrian Regional Control
Iran's regional strategy is to project its power and assert control across the entire Middle East via proxies – including Muktada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi army in Iraq, Hamas in Jordan, the Alawite regime in Syria, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Gaza, and Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups in the West Bank and Gaza. Iran avoids getting its hands dirty by working through proxies, thereby creating maximum instability with minimum responsibility. Aside from Iran's operational support and financial sponsorship of Hizbullah and Hamas, Iran's financial backing and training of Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq has been well documented by U.S. defense and intelligence officials. Gen. Michael Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 2006 that "the Iranian hand is stoking violence in Iraq and supporting even competing Shia factions." This assessment was shared by Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in congressional testimony. Iran has also supplied direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, in addition to terror militia training in Iran conducted by the IRGC and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
Senior U.S. intelligence official shave also said that Iran's Hizbullah proxy had used bases in Lebanon to train up to 2,000 members of the Iraqi Shiite Mahdi army. Iran reportedly facilitated the link between Hizbullah and the Shiite militias in Iraq.
Iran's Syrian ally hosts terror proxies, too, who live in, and operate with impunity from, Damascus. Syria's long arm of terror has been extended via Palestinian groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, without bloodying Syrian hands, thanks to deniability. Aside from hosting Palestinian terror groups, Syria has allowed its border with neighboring Iraq to remain porous, serving as a pipeline for financing Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups, a fact noted by the Baker-Hamilton Report. Since 2003, Bashar al-Assad has sanctioned the smuggling of weapons and ammunition, and has ignored the infiltration of terror operatives from Syria to Iraq. Beginning in March 2003, eye-witnesses in Aleppo, Syria, reported seeing busloads of Mujahideen heading into neighboring Iraq as Syrian border police waved them through. Since 2003, U.S. forces have reported killing and capturing Syrian nationals and Syrian-sponsored Jihadis involved in insurgency terror actions.
Iran's use of Syria as a bridgehead to the Arab world, together with Tehran's sponsorship of terror proxies to assert regional control, is a powerful model that has succeeded in destabilizing the region without the UN or any other major international organization stopping it. As a result, Iran and Syria, as well as North Korea, are able to defy the international community without paying a steep price.
Iran's ultimate objective is to leverage its recalibrated, more muscular, regional control and, under the umbrella of a rapidly advancing nuclear program, destabilize and ultimately subvert the international state system. From a historical perspective, Ahmadinejad and his allies have reason to believe that their objective to destroy Israel and defeat the West is on track. Islamists take credit for pushing the United States out of Lebanon in 1984, the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Israelis out of Lebanon in 2000, the Spanish out of Iraq in 2004, and the Israelis out of Gaza in 2005. Now they believe they are close to pushing the Americans out of Iraq as well. Iran has paid no price for its transgressions: the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina; the torture and imprisonment of thousands of dissidents; the continuous violation of international understandings related to its nuclear program. These "successes" have only emboldened Islamists worldwide, fueling a perception among radicals that the West is simply afraid to confront them.
Like Iran's mullahs and its apocalyptic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's Bashar Assad has paid no penalty for his sins, from the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, involvement in the November 2006 assassination of Lebanese Christian Cabinet Minister Pierre Gemayel, the ruthless suppression of Syrian dissidents, the use of Syrian soil as a safe haven for terrorist operations against coalition forces in Iraq, and the sheltering of leaders of terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Despite President Bush's veiled threats against Syria and Iran following the Gemayal and Hariri murders to destabilize Lebanon, Assad's regime has been so confident of its immunity from American or Israeli attack that it allowed Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to hold a press conference in Damascus celebrating the June 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, even as local Hamas leaders in the Palestinian Authority distanced themselves from the abduction. On July 12, 2006, the day of the Hizbullah kidnapping of two more IDF soldiers in northern Israel, Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was in Damascus to discuss strategic issues with Mashaal and officials of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups. According to reports, Larijani was also to have met with senior Hizbullah officials, who were unable to crossover from Lebanon that day.
Part 4
The Spread of Iranian and Syrian Regional Control
Iran's regional strategy is to project its power and assert control across the entire Middle East via proxies – including Muktada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi army in Iraq, Hamas in Jordan, the Alawite regime in Syria, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Gaza, and Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups in the West Bank and Gaza. Iran avoids getting its hands dirty by working through proxies, thereby creating maximum instability with minimum responsibility. Aside from Iran's operational support and financial sponsorship of Hizbullah and Hamas, Iran's financial backing and training of Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq has been well documented by U.S. defense and intelligence officials. Gen. Michael Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 2006 that "the Iranian hand is stoking violence in Iraq and supporting even competing Shia factions." This assessment was shared by Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in congressional testimony. Iran has also supplied direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, in addition to terror militia training in Iran conducted by the IRGC and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
Senior U.S. intelligence official shave also said that Iran's Hizbullah proxy had used bases in Lebanon to train up to 2,000 members of the Iraqi Shiite Mahdi army. Iran reportedly facilitated the link between Hizbullah and the Shiite militias in Iraq.
Iran's Syrian ally hosts terror proxies, too, who live in, and operate with impunity from, Damascus. Syria's long arm of terror has been extended via Palestinian groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, without bloodying Syrian hands, thanks to deniability. Aside from hosting Palestinian terror groups, Syria has allowed its border with neighboring Iraq to remain porous, serving as a pipeline for financing Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups, a fact noted by the Baker-Hamilton Report. Since 2003, Bashar al-Assad has sanctioned the smuggling of weapons and ammunition, and has ignored the infiltration of terror operatives from Syria to Iraq. Beginning in March 2003, eye-witnesses in Aleppo, Syria, reported seeing busloads of Mujahideen heading into neighboring Iraq as Syrian border police waved them through. Since 2003, U.S. forces have reported killing and capturing Syrian nationals and Syrian-sponsored Jihadis involved in insurgency terror actions.
Iran's use of Syria as a bridgehead to the Arab world, together with Tehran's sponsorship of terror proxies to assert regional control, is a powerful model that has succeeded in destabilizing the region without the UN or any other major international organization stopping it. As a result, Iran and Syria, as well as North Korea, are able to defy the international community without paying a steep price.
Iran's ultimate objective is to leverage its recalibrated, more muscular, regional control and, under the umbrella of a rapidly advancing nuclear program, destabilize and ultimately subvert the international state system. From a historical perspective, Ahmadinejad and his allies have reason to believe that their objective to destroy Israel and defeat the West is on track. Islamists take credit for pushing the United States out of Lebanon in 1984, the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Israelis out of Lebanon in 2000, the Spanish out of Iraq in 2004, and the Israelis out of Gaza in 2005. Now they believe they are close to pushing the Americans out of Iraq as well. Iran has paid no price for its transgressions: the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina; the torture and imprisonment of thousands of dissidents; the continuous violation of international understandings related to its nuclear program. These "successes" have only emboldened Islamists worldwide, fueling a perception among radicals that the West is simply afraid to confront them.
Like Iran's mullahs and its apocalyptic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's Bashar Assad has paid no penalty for his sins, from the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, involvement in the November 2006 assassination of Lebanese Christian Cabinet Minister Pierre Gemayel, the ruthless suppression of Syrian dissidents, the use of Syrian soil as a safe haven for terrorist operations against coalition forces in Iraq, and the sheltering of leaders of terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Despite President Bush's veiled threats against Syria and Iran following the Gemayal and Hariri murders to destabilize Lebanon, Assad's regime has been so confident of its immunity from American or Israeli attack that it allowed Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to hold a press conference in Damascus celebrating the June 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, even as local Hamas leaders in the Palestinian Authority distanced themselves from the abduction. On July 12, 2006, the day of the Hizbullah kidnapping of two more IDF soldiers in northern Israel, Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was in Damascus to discuss strategic issues with Mashaal and officials of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups. According to reports, Larijani was also to have met with senior Hizbullah officials, who were unable to crossover from Lebanon that day.
Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Part 3
New Jihadi Threats to the Regional Order and International State System
The Second Lebanon War also represents the development of several new types of strategic threats to the regional state system. First, rogue states such as Iran and Syria have become architects of what can be called the "terror state within a state" model. Hizbullah and Hamas, both leading Iranian proxies, are examples of sub-state and quasi-state organizations, respectively, that have essentially "kidnapped" their weak host governments – Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, respectively – from which they have operated with impunity. The same kind of terror blackmail relationship between al-Qaeda and its Saudi Arabian hosts has existed since the late 1980s. This model has also taken root in such weak states as Yemen and Afghanistan. The Taliban Mujahideen regime had simply cannibalized the Afghan government, until the U.S. invasion that followed the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.
In Lebanon, Hizbullah has become a "state within a state" due to massive political and military backing from Syria and Iran. Prior to the summer 2006 war the Lebanese government had allowed Hizbullah to operate from its sovereign soil as a quid pro quo for Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's agreement not to attack targets in Lebanon. This blackmail relationship resulted in Hizbullah's "protection" of the Lebanese central government. However, this unstable relationship unraveled in November 2006 when Hizbullah's two government ministers resigned as part of an Iranian- and Syrian-backed efforttotopple the Seniora government, dissolve the parliament, and assert Hizbullah control over all of Lebanon.
Aside from its broad political influence in Lebanon, Hizbullah's fighting capabilities have raised its stature well beyond that of a terror organization. It should be more accurately characterized as a heavily armed and highly disciplined military force that operates with sophisticated Syrian and Iranian weaponry, and high quality command and control assistance and training by the IRGC.
Hizbullah, therefore, via its political and military infrastructures, benefits from a de facto status as a full state actor, without the commensurate responsibility and accountability to the international state system. That fact was well
reflected in its decisionon July12, 2006, to attack Israel without the permission of, or notice to, its democratically elected Lebanese host government. In short, Hizbullah exploits the international state system by agreeing to cease-fire negotiations opposite Israel, but does not bear any of the legal, political and diplomatic accountability as does its sovereign Lebanese host.
Another type of threat to the regional state system has arisen in the Palestinian Authority, a weak quasi-state actor. Since January 2006, Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hamas has taken control. Ironically, however, Hamas' official policy of refusing to recognize Israel and its engaging in terror against the Jewish state has strengthened Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' case for international sympathy and support. His claims that he is too weak to enforce law and order and turn back Hamas' terror policy without external support may or may not be true. Various PA security forces have a combined strength of nearly 50,000 men. However, Abbas was described recently by a senior Fatah PA security official as someone who "could not move a tea cup from one side of a table to the other without expressing the fear that the cup might tip over."
Whether Abbas lacks the required power or simply the political will to neutralize local Islamic terror groups and stabilize the Palestinian areas, his professed weakness opposite Hamas and other Jihadi militias, particularly in Gaza, has helped him maintain broad international support. For example, Abbas has parlayed his policy of weakness into a source of political strength with the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lavished praise on Abbas on October 11, 2006, before a leading Palestinian-American group, reiterating her "personal commitment" to his leadership and his efforts to establish a Palestinian state.
Abbas is not alone in his using this strategic option. Former PA leader Yasser Arafat also employed this strategy effectively during the Oslo years from 1993 to 2000. Arafat had consistently argued that he lacked the ability to rein in Hamas. Abbas also discovered that it pays for him to avoid risking all out confrontation and possible civil war with Hamas. Abbas' declared weakness also protects him in the international community, which continues to concede to Jihadi groups by demonstrating patience, tolerance and understanding for weak states such as Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. These states do not prevent terror activity from being planned and executed from within their borders, and then reject the basic standards of international accountability to which they must be held, but from which they continue to be excused.
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Seniora also won the same type of international sympathy for his inability to disarm Hizbullah. Instead of holding Seniora accountable for allowing an Iranian proxy group to operate from within sovereign Lebanon, the international community actively engaged Lebanon and Hizbullah in frantic UN-sponsored diplomacy to end hostilities, broker a cease-fire and deploy 15,000 UN forces in southern Lebanon. This was a strategic error by the West. The international community should have established collective "red lines" and demonstrated Unified political determination with respect to Hizbullah, as it did when it lent its full backing and international legal force to the Seniora government to expel the Syrian army from Lebanon in 2005. Had it succeeded this time around, the international community could have impressed upon Seniora and the Lebanese government that it would have no alternative but to summon the same political and military will to disarm Hizbullah as it did in evicting Syrian troops from Lebanon.
The same lesson applies to the PA's Abbas. International aid to the Palestinians should have been conditioned on Hamas disarming before the Palestinian elections in January 2006. If the international community establishes an international code of conduct and mobilizes to enforce it, weak host countries could well discover previously unrealized political and military strength in the interest of national self-preservation.
Part 3
New Jihadi Threats to the Regional Order and International State System
The Second Lebanon War also represents the development of several new types of strategic threats to the regional state system. First, rogue states such as Iran and Syria have become architects of what can be called the "terror state within a state" model. Hizbullah and Hamas, both leading Iranian proxies, are examples of sub-state and quasi-state organizations, respectively, that have essentially "kidnapped" their weak host governments – Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, respectively – from which they have operated with impunity. The same kind of terror blackmail relationship between al-Qaeda and its Saudi Arabian hosts has existed since the late 1980s. This model has also taken root in such weak states as Yemen and Afghanistan. The Taliban Mujahideen regime had simply cannibalized the Afghan government, until the U.S. invasion that followed the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.
In Lebanon, Hizbullah has become a "state within a state" due to massive political and military backing from Syria and Iran. Prior to the summer 2006 war the Lebanese government had allowed Hizbullah to operate from its sovereign soil as a quid pro quo for Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's agreement not to attack targets in Lebanon. This blackmail relationship resulted in Hizbullah's "protection" of the Lebanese central government. However, this unstable relationship unraveled in November 2006 when Hizbullah's two government ministers resigned as part of an Iranian- and Syrian-backed efforttotopple the Seniora government, dissolve the parliament, and assert Hizbullah control over all of Lebanon.
Aside from its broad political influence in Lebanon, Hizbullah's fighting capabilities have raised its stature well beyond that of a terror organization. It should be more accurately characterized as a heavily armed and highly disciplined military force that operates with sophisticated Syrian and Iranian weaponry, and high quality command and control assistance and training by the IRGC.
Hizbullah, therefore, via its political and military infrastructures, benefits from a de facto status as a full state actor, without the commensurate responsibility and accountability to the international state system. That fact was well
reflected in its decisionon July12, 2006, to attack Israel without the permission of, or notice to, its democratically elected Lebanese host government. In short, Hizbullah exploits the international state system by agreeing to cease-fire negotiations opposite Israel, but does not bear any of the legal, political and diplomatic accountability as does its sovereign Lebanese host.
Another type of threat to the regional state system has arisen in the Palestinian Authority, a weak quasi-state actor. Since January 2006, Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hamas has taken control. Ironically, however, Hamas' official policy of refusing to recognize Israel and its engaging in terror against the Jewish state has strengthened Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' case for international sympathy and support. His claims that he is too weak to enforce law and order and turn back Hamas' terror policy without external support may or may not be true. Various PA security forces have a combined strength of nearly 50,000 men. However, Abbas was described recently by a senior Fatah PA security official as someone who "could not move a tea cup from one side of a table to the other without expressing the fear that the cup might tip over."
Whether Abbas lacks the required power or simply the political will to neutralize local Islamic terror groups and stabilize the Palestinian areas, his professed weakness opposite Hamas and other Jihadi militias, particularly in Gaza, has helped him maintain broad international support. For example, Abbas has parlayed his policy of weakness into a source of political strength with the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lavished praise on Abbas on October 11, 2006, before a leading Palestinian-American group, reiterating her "personal commitment" to his leadership and his efforts to establish a Palestinian state.
Abbas is not alone in his using this strategic option. Former PA leader Yasser Arafat also employed this strategy effectively during the Oslo years from 1993 to 2000. Arafat had consistently argued that he lacked the ability to rein in Hamas. Abbas also discovered that it pays for him to avoid risking all out confrontation and possible civil war with Hamas. Abbas' declared weakness also protects him in the international community, which continues to concede to Jihadi groups by demonstrating patience, tolerance and understanding for weak states such as Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. These states do not prevent terror activity from being planned and executed from within their borders, and then reject the basic standards of international accountability to which they must be held, but from which they continue to be excused.
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Seniora also won the same type of international sympathy for his inability to disarm Hizbullah. Instead of holding Seniora accountable for allowing an Iranian proxy group to operate from within sovereign Lebanon, the international community actively engaged Lebanon and Hizbullah in frantic UN-sponsored diplomacy to end hostilities, broker a cease-fire and deploy 15,000 UN forces in southern Lebanon. This was a strategic error by the West. The international community should have established collective "red lines" and demonstrated Unified political determination with respect to Hizbullah, as it did when it lent its full backing and international legal force to the Seniora government to expel the Syrian army from Lebanon in 2005. Had it succeeded this time around, the international community could have impressed upon Seniora and the Lebanese government that it would have no alternative but to summon the same political and military will to disarm Hizbullah as it did in evicting Syrian troops from Lebanon.
The same lesson applies to the PA's Abbas. International aid to the Palestinians should have been conditioned on Hamas disarming before the Palestinian elections in January 2006. If the international community establishes an international code of conduct and mobilizes to enforce it, weak host countries could well discover previously unrealized political and military strength in the interest of national self-preservation.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Response to the Boycott
Dear Ambassador Jones,
It is with more than disappointment that I have learned that the American government and the Embassy here in Israel are boycotting Jerusalem Day. It is obvious to all that it is fear of offending Muslim 'sensitivities' that this is taking place.
Need anyone who knows history be reminded that Jerusalem has been the capital city of Jews for 2,000 years until 1948 - long before Islam was born? That same history shows that even during those years when this land was under various foreign rulers there was always a Jewish presence here? That Jews were the first Palestinians since the Romans gave Judea that name in order to break Jewish ties to the Land? The Arabs did not even call themselves 'Palestinians' until long after the Jewish State was reborn - and that for political expediency!
Who does not know that the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration gave the British Mandated Government the responsibility of creating a Jewish Homeland in what is today Jordan and Palestine - yet 78% of that promise was awarded to the creation of an 'Arabs-only' state of Jordan - known as 'eastern Palestine' with the remaining 22% to be a Jewish state? Instead, there were even pogroms against Jews in Palestine prior to 1948 by those who supported Hitler and contributed to the decimation of European Jewry as well as pressuring the British not to open the gates to the Jewish homeland .
Israel has faced war after war and nineteen years of estrangement from the heart of her history and religion. From 1948 -1967 - during which time the Jordanians illegally controlled the eastern part of Jerusalem, Jews were prevented from praying at the Western Wall, 56 synagogues were destroyed with just one remaining. The ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was laid waste and headstones were appropriated for Jordanian stables and latrines!! .Since then that same enemy has continued to destroy proof of the Jewish Temples on the Mount as well as other holy places. They have demonized the Jewish State and are carrying on a worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel - denying the Holocaust - when even the Nazis kept meticulous records of their own evil. We know only too well that the only reliable guardians of Jerusalem are the Jews who respect the presence of all faiths.
The unbridled violence that engulfed the Jewish community both prior to 1948 and after was the precursor to the terrorism confronting the entire free world today; its goals are the annihilation of Israel and the United States as well - for a start. The international network of terrorism is thriving and we are not even standing up and saying 'Enough' !!!
Now is that time. The Middle East conflict is part and parcel of the whole picture. Israel is at the forefront of the same battle facing the rest of the world. If democratic Israel is not supported fully against a barbaric enemy it weakens our fight to turn back the fanatic Islamicist world which is emboldened by every concession.
Not recognizing and celebrating the legitimate unification of Jerusalem - a city that became free for all religions in 1967 - is nothing less than appeasement of those destructive forces that wish to control all of the land and, eventually, all of the world.
Finally, when President Bush was campaigning for the Presidency, one of his first promises was to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, the Eternal Capital of Israel. Had that been carried out immediately, upon his ascendancy to that office, it would have sent a clear message to friend and foe alike, that the United States of America recognizes its loyal friends and honors its obligations.
As a proud American - no matter where I am - I regret that the Bush administration does not recognize that celebrating Jerusalem Day with Israel would be a show of solidarity with a small country that shares many of its own dreams - a haven for those who seek freedom and are willing to contribute to the betterment of life for all through peaceful participation. Not joining in the festivity is a statement in the other direction; there is no neutrality.
Justice demands that Jerusalem remain united . Celebrating Jerusalem Day would show the world that
Israel's rebuilding and restoration in this ancient-modern city for the past 40 years is a symbol of her deep love and respect for a universal city that has been in her heart for centuries and will remain so till the end of time.
Sincerely,
Chana Givon
in beloved Jerusalem
It is with more than disappointment that I have learned that the American government and the Embassy here in Israel are boycotting Jerusalem Day. It is obvious to all that it is fear of offending Muslim 'sensitivities' that this is taking place.
Need anyone who knows history be reminded that Jerusalem has been the capital city of Jews for 2,000 years until 1948 - long before Islam was born? That same history shows that even during those years when this land was under various foreign rulers there was always a Jewish presence here? That Jews were the first Palestinians since the Romans gave Judea that name in order to break Jewish ties to the Land? The Arabs did not even call themselves 'Palestinians' until long after the Jewish State was reborn - and that for political expediency!
Who does not know that the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration gave the British Mandated Government the responsibility of creating a Jewish Homeland in what is today Jordan and Palestine - yet 78% of that promise was awarded to the creation of an 'Arabs-only' state of Jordan - known as 'eastern Palestine' with the remaining 22% to be a Jewish state? Instead, there were even pogroms against Jews in Palestine prior to 1948 by those who supported Hitler and contributed to the decimation of European Jewry as well as pressuring the British not to open the gates to the Jewish homeland .
Israel has faced war after war and nineteen years of estrangement from the heart of her history and religion. From 1948 -1967 - during which time the Jordanians illegally controlled the eastern part of Jerusalem, Jews were prevented from praying at the Western Wall, 56 synagogues were destroyed with just one remaining. The ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was laid waste and headstones were appropriated for Jordanian stables and latrines!! .Since then that same enemy has continued to destroy proof of the Jewish Temples on the Mount as well as other holy places. They have demonized the Jewish State and are carrying on a worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel - denying the Holocaust - when even the Nazis kept meticulous records of their own evil. We know only too well that the only reliable guardians of Jerusalem are the Jews who respect the presence of all faiths.
The unbridled violence that engulfed the Jewish community both prior to 1948 and after was the precursor to the terrorism confronting the entire free world today; its goals are the annihilation of Israel and the United States as well - for a start. The international network of terrorism is thriving and we are not even standing up and saying 'Enough' !!!
Now is that time. The Middle East conflict is part and parcel of the whole picture. Israel is at the forefront of the same battle facing the rest of the world. If democratic Israel is not supported fully against a barbaric enemy it weakens our fight to turn back the fanatic Islamicist world which is emboldened by every concession.
Not recognizing and celebrating the legitimate unification of Jerusalem - a city that became free for all religions in 1967 - is nothing less than appeasement of those destructive forces that wish to control all of the land and, eventually, all of the world.
Finally, when President Bush was campaigning for the Presidency, one of his first promises was to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, the Eternal Capital of Israel. Had that been carried out immediately, upon his ascendancy to that office, it would have sent a clear message to friend and foe alike, that the United States of America recognizes its loyal friends and honors its obligations.
As a proud American - no matter where I am - I regret that the Bush administration does not recognize that celebrating Jerusalem Day with Israel would be a show of solidarity with a small country that shares many of its own dreams - a haven for those who seek freedom and are willing to contribute to the betterment of life for all through peaceful participation. Not joining in the festivity is a statement in the other direction; there is no neutrality.
Justice demands that Jerusalem remain united . Celebrating Jerusalem Day would show the world that
Israel's rebuilding and restoration in this ancient-modern city for the past 40 years is a symbol of her deep love and respect for a universal city that has been in her heart for centuries and will remain so till the end of time.
Sincerely,
Chana Givon
in beloved Jerusalem
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Part Two-Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
The New Islamist War
The root cause of the Second Lebanon War was neither the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 nor the Israeli "occupation" of the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza following Israel's defensive war in 1967. Rather, it can be traced to 1979 when Iranian revolutionaries began to inspire and later to actively direct and finance Islamic radicals through out the world. They galvanized the leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas, and inspired other Jihadis, including PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who was one of the first Arab leaders to visit the newly triumphant Ayatollah Khomeini soon after the 1979 Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Today, despite the deployment of thousands of UNIFIL and Lebanese forces following Hizbullah's reluctant agreement to yield to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, southern Lebanon is still essentially a Hizbullah-ruled province of Iran. Hizbullah has maintained its weapons caches and continues to receive truckloads of short- and long-range missiles and anti-tank weaponry from Syria. IDF Intelligence Assessment Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz noted in October 2006 that the army also has proof that the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon continues with the knowledge of Damascus. Hizbullah's underground networks of tunnels and bunkers are still operating despite the presence of UNIFIL and Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River. Hizbullah is not hiding its postwar intentions. On October 12, 2006, Nabi Beri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Shiite Amal party, and a Hizbullah interlocutor,said, "Hizbullah will remain armed and fully operational in southern Lebanon, despite the newly deployed UN forces. The UNIFIL presence will not hinder Hizbullah defensive operations. The resistance doesn't need to fly its flags high to operate. It's a guerrilla movement; it operates among the people.
For its part, Iran invested some one to two hundred million dollars per year in Hizbullah war preparations for a total of between one and two billion dollars as of July 2006. Iran also maintains a representative office in Lebanon for nearly every one of its major government ministries including intelligence, social welfare, housing, transportation, and infrastructure.
Iran's financial and operational assistance and training of Hizbullah terrorists peaked in recent years. That was evident during the summer 2006 war against Israel. Hizbullah was very well equipped with a wide variety of short, medium and long-range Syrian and Iranian rockets, and highly sophisticated weaponry including a generous supply of anti-tank ordinance. Up to 250 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) best trainers were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hizbullah units. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian C802 radar-guided missile that hit an Israeli warship during the firstweekofthewarwas launched from Lebanon by members of the IRGC. Iran has also trained up to 3,000 Hizbullah fightersinTehransince2004,including nearly all mid- and senior-level Hizbullah officers.
Further south, Iran also offers financial and operational support to the Hamas-led government in Palestinian-controlled Gaza. Palestinian terrorists have received Iranian weapons, technological know-how, and money, as evidenced by the $50-100 million commitment Iran made at the end of a terror summit in Tehran on April 14-17, 2006.
Moreover, between August and October 2006, nearly twenty tons of weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets was smuggled from Egyptian Sinai, under the noses of the Egyptian authorities, into the Gaza Strip. Numerous reported meetings between Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Mashaal and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both during and in advance of the recent Lebanon war and immediately following the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, were previews of this dangerous alliance.
Concerns over the relationship between Iran and Hamas are well-founded. On December 11, 2006, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, known as more moderate than Mashaal, said following a visit with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran had stepped up its commitment to the Hamas-led PA, pledging $250 million. Iran even committed to pay the salaries of 100,000 Palestinian Authority employees for six months. The Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting carries additional significance. Previously, Hamas' relationship with Iran had been brokered exclusively by the Damascus-based Mashaal. Israeli military intelligence expressed concern that the Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting reflected an upgraded strategic relationship between Iran and Hamas. Haniyah confirmed Israel's assessment when he said, immediately following his return from Tehran in December 2006, that "Iran has provided Palestinians strategic depth." Upon Haniyah's return, he was found to be carrying $35 million in cash in several suitcases.
Despite the longstanding and violent sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that is being played out today in Iraq, Iranian-led radical Shiites and their Sunni adversaries share a common commitment to destroying the State of Israel on the way to defeating the West as a whole.
Syria, Iran's junior partner, continues to host Hamas and other Jihadi leaders, allowing them to order terrorist attacks against Israeli targets from the safety of Damascus. Syria may not be an Islamist state, but its leader, Bashar Assad, clings to power through the manipulation of anti-Western sentiment and pro-Iranian Shiite loyalty. The ruling Alawites were given the blessing of Iranian Shiite cleric Musa Sadr in 1973, a move that fomented enmity among Syria's Sunni majority and placed the Syrian regime squarely inside the Iranian Shiite camp.
The root cause of the Second Lebanon War was neither the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 nor the Israeli "occupation" of the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza following Israel's defensive war in 1967. Rather, it can be traced to 1979 when Iranian revolutionaries began to inspire and later to actively direct and finance Islamic radicals through out the world. They galvanized the leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas, and inspired other Jihadis, including PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who was one of the first Arab leaders to visit the newly triumphant Ayatollah Khomeini soon after the 1979 Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Today, despite the deployment of thousands of UNIFIL and Lebanese forces following Hizbullah's reluctant agreement to yield to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, southern Lebanon is still essentially a Hizbullah-ruled province of Iran. Hizbullah has maintained its weapons caches and continues to receive truckloads of short- and long-range missiles and anti-tank weaponry from Syria. IDF Intelligence Assessment Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz noted in October 2006 that the army also has proof that the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon continues with the knowledge of Damascus. Hizbullah's underground networks of tunnels and bunkers are still operating despite the presence of UNIFIL and Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River. Hizbullah is not hiding its postwar intentions. On October 12, 2006, Nabi Beri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Shiite Amal party, and a Hizbullah interlocutor,said, "Hizbullah will remain armed and fully operational in southern Lebanon, despite the newly deployed UN forces. The UNIFIL presence will not hinder Hizbullah defensive operations. The resistance doesn't need to fly its flags high to operate. It's a guerrilla movement; it operates among the people.
For its part, Iran invested some one to two hundred million dollars per year in Hizbullah war preparations for a total of between one and two billion dollars as of July 2006. Iran also maintains a representative office in Lebanon for nearly every one of its major government ministries including intelligence, social welfare, housing, transportation, and infrastructure.
Iran's financial and operational assistance and training of Hizbullah terrorists peaked in recent years. That was evident during the summer 2006 war against Israel. Hizbullah was very well equipped with a wide variety of short, medium and long-range Syrian and Iranian rockets, and highly sophisticated weaponry including a generous supply of anti-tank ordinance. Up to 250 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) best trainers were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hizbullah units. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian C802 radar-guided missile that hit an Israeli warship during the firstweekofthewarwas launched from Lebanon by members of the IRGC. Iran has also trained up to 3,000 Hizbullah fightersinTehransince2004,including nearly all mid- and senior-level Hizbullah officers.
Further south, Iran also offers financial and operational support to the Hamas-led government in Palestinian-controlled Gaza. Palestinian terrorists have received Iranian weapons, technological know-how, and money, as evidenced by the $50-100 million commitment Iran made at the end of a terror summit in Tehran on April 14-17, 2006.
Moreover, between August and October 2006, nearly twenty tons of weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets was smuggled from Egyptian Sinai, under the noses of the Egyptian authorities, into the Gaza Strip. Numerous reported meetings between Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Mashaal and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both during and in advance of the recent Lebanon war and immediately following the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, were previews of this dangerous alliance.
Concerns over the relationship between Iran and Hamas are well-founded. On December 11, 2006, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, known as more moderate than Mashaal, said following a visit with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran had stepped up its commitment to the Hamas-led PA, pledging $250 million. Iran even committed to pay the salaries of 100,000 Palestinian Authority employees for six months. The Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting carries additional significance. Previously, Hamas' relationship with Iran had been brokered exclusively by the Damascus-based Mashaal. Israeli military intelligence expressed concern that the Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting reflected an upgraded strategic relationship between Iran and Hamas. Haniyah confirmed Israel's assessment when he said, immediately following his return from Tehran in December 2006, that "Iran has provided Palestinians strategic depth." Upon Haniyah's return, he was found to be carrying $35 million in cash in several suitcases.
Despite the longstanding and violent sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that is being played out today in Iraq, Iranian-led radical Shiites and their Sunni adversaries share a common commitment to destroying the State of Israel on the way to defeating the West as a whole.
Syria, Iran's junior partner, continues to host Hamas and other Jihadi leaders, allowing them to order terrorist attacks against Israeli targets from the safety of Damascus. Syria may not be an Islamist state, but its leader, Bashar Assad, clings to power through the manipulation of anti-Western sentiment and pro-Iranian Shiite loyalty. The ruling Alawites were given the blessing of Iranian Shiite cleric Musa Sadr in 1973, a move that fomented enmity among Syria's Sunni majority and placed the Syrian regime squarely inside the Iranian Shiite camp.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Moshe Yaalon- Former IDF Chief of Staff
We are beginning a 7-part series by Moshe Yaalon, former IDF Chief of Staff. Having had a personal conversation with General Yaalon, he granted us permission to offer this series on our blog. We thank him and the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs for allowing us to re-post this crucial message.
The Second Lebanon War: From Territory to Ideology
By Moshe Yaalon
2007
Part One
Introduction
If there remains doubt over the underlying reasons for the ongoing violence in the Middle East, the Second Lebanon War is one of the clearest illustrations in many years that "the Middle East conflict" does not stem from Israel's "occupation of Arab or Palestinian lands." This longstanding "root cause" argument has been popular in many international circles and even among some quarters in Israel. The strategic assumption has been that, since 1967, the Middle East's myriad problems can be traced to Israel's "occupation" of lands from which the Jewish state was attacked: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.
But the summer 2006 wars – that included 4,228 Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored rocket assaults against Israel's home front and the kidnapping of one IDF soldier by Hamas and two IDF soldiers by Hizbullah – is perhaps the most recent evidence that this argument continues to be fundamentally flawed. The two-front war opened against Israel in 2006 – firstbyHamasfromGazaonJune26, 2006, and then by Hizbullah across Israel's northern border on July 12, 2006 – was launched from lands that are not under Israeli occupation. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in both cases, from Gaza in September 2005 and previously from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Furthermore, the assessment that Hizbullah's assaults stemmed from unresolved border disputes over the Shaba Farms is unfounded. Lebanon's Hizbullah as well as Syrian claimants deny Israel's existence as a Jewish sovereign state within any borders.
In fact, the summer 2006 assaults against Israel are not remarkable in their lacking any clear territorial pretext. Since the 1920s there has been an unrelenting Arab Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereign entity in the Middle East region, despite the international popularity of the notion in recent years that ending Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza and solving Palestinian refugee and border conflicts would spawn regional peace and stability. Quite remarkably, on September 19, 2006, only a month after the UN-brokered cease-fire ended Iran's two-front proxy assault against Israel via radical Islamic groups (Hamas and Hizbullah), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the General Assembly at the opening of its 61st session: "As long as the Security Council is unable to resolve the nearly 40-year (Israeli) occupation and confiscation of Arab land, so long will the UN's effort store solve other conflicts be resisted including those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notwithstanding Annan's fundamental misassessment, there are clearly different "root causes" that have been and currently are the main obstacles to Middle East peace and stability – namely, a regional Jihad led by Iran, enabled by Syria and the radical Islamists that both states sponsor. In fact, according to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and Iran's Syrian partners, the Second Lebanon War launched by Iran's Hizbullah proxy was a hostile probe of U.S. reflexes via the engagement of Israel, which for Iran and Syria is a direct extension of Washington's power and influence in the Middle East. To be sure, the Second Lebanon War was not launched against Israel for any specific national grievance.
In fact, Iran's goals in the Lebanon theatre go well beyond destroying Israel. Iran and Syria have for years used Hizbullah as a terrorist arm of their respective foreign policies against Western regional interests. Hizbullah's 1983 suicide attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines near Beirut is one example. Its 1985 hijacking in Beirut of TWA Flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy diver is another. The 1996 attack by Hizbullah's Saudi branch, Hizbullah al-Hejaz, on behalf of the Iranians that killed 19 U.S. Army personnel at Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers is yet another case.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah axis then is a partnership whose fundamental objective is to project Iranian power and influence across there going from Tehran, through Baghdad, via Damascus into Lebanon in order to achieve regional hegemony. Iran's offensive on two fronts, against both U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq as well as against Israel, a key U.S. ally, reflects Tehran's strategic interest in neutering America's regional influence as a prelude to defeating the West. Syria, Iran's Arab ally and regional facilitator, has hitched its future to Ahmadinejad's strategy of becoming the region's hegemonic power under the protection of a nuclear umbrella as it marches toward a possible nuclear confrontation with the U.S. and the West.
The more the United States and it allies hesitate to confront Iran's current regional threat under a possible nuclear umbrella, the more emboldened Jihadi confidence becomes. The December 6, 2006, Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report proposal recommending a "softer" diplomatic approach via a U.S.-led diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria, and Israel's reengagement of the Assad regime and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, may paradoxically accelerate the process to military confrontation with Iran. Rather, full diplomatic and economic isolation, and, if necessary, military defeat of Iran and Syria, would pave a more secure road for the Middle East and the international state system.
The Second Lebanon War: From Territory to Ideology
By Moshe Yaalon
2007
Part One
Introduction
If there remains doubt over the underlying reasons for the ongoing violence in the Middle East, the Second Lebanon War is one of the clearest illustrations in many years that "the Middle East conflict" does not stem from Israel's "occupation of Arab or Palestinian lands." This longstanding "root cause" argument has been popular in many international circles and even among some quarters in Israel. The strategic assumption has been that, since 1967, the Middle East's myriad problems can be traced to Israel's "occupation" of lands from which the Jewish state was attacked: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.
But the summer 2006 wars – that included 4,228 Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored rocket assaults against Israel's home front and the kidnapping of one IDF soldier by Hamas and two IDF soldiers by Hizbullah – is perhaps the most recent evidence that this argument continues to be fundamentally flawed. The two-front war opened against Israel in 2006 – firstbyHamasfromGazaonJune26, 2006, and then by Hizbullah across Israel's northern border on July 12, 2006 – was launched from lands that are not under Israeli occupation. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in both cases, from Gaza in September 2005 and previously from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Furthermore, the assessment that Hizbullah's assaults stemmed from unresolved border disputes over the Shaba Farms is unfounded. Lebanon's Hizbullah as well as Syrian claimants deny Israel's existence as a Jewish sovereign state within any borders.
In fact, the summer 2006 assaults against Israel are not remarkable in their lacking any clear territorial pretext. Since the 1920s there has been an unrelenting Arab Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereign entity in the Middle East region, despite the international popularity of the notion in recent years that ending Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza and solving Palestinian refugee and border conflicts would spawn regional peace and stability. Quite remarkably, on September 19, 2006, only a month after the UN-brokered cease-fire ended Iran's two-front proxy assault against Israel via radical Islamic groups (Hamas and Hizbullah), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the General Assembly at the opening of its 61st session: "As long as the Security Council is unable to resolve the nearly 40-year (Israeli) occupation and confiscation of Arab land, so long will the UN's effort store solve other conflicts be resisted including those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notwithstanding Annan's fundamental misassessment, there are clearly different "root causes" that have been and currently are the main obstacles to Middle East peace and stability – namely, a regional Jihad led by Iran, enabled by Syria and the radical Islamists that both states sponsor. In fact, according to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and Iran's Syrian partners, the Second Lebanon War launched by Iran's Hizbullah proxy was a hostile probe of U.S. reflexes via the engagement of Israel, which for Iran and Syria is a direct extension of Washington's power and influence in the Middle East. To be sure, the Second Lebanon War was not launched against Israel for any specific national grievance.
In fact, Iran's goals in the Lebanon theatre go well beyond destroying Israel. Iran and Syria have for years used Hizbullah as a terrorist arm of their respective foreign policies against Western regional interests. Hizbullah's 1983 suicide attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines near Beirut is one example. Its 1985 hijacking in Beirut of TWA Flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy diver is another. The 1996 attack by Hizbullah's Saudi branch, Hizbullah al-Hejaz, on behalf of the Iranians that killed 19 U.S. Army personnel at Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers is yet another case.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah axis then is a partnership whose fundamental objective is to project Iranian power and influence across there going from Tehran, through Baghdad, via Damascus into Lebanon in order to achieve regional hegemony. Iran's offensive on two fronts, against both U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq as well as against Israel, a key U.S. ally, reflects Tehran's strategic interest in neutering America's regional influence as a prelude to defeating the West. Syria, Iran's Arab ally and regional facilitator, has hitched its future to Ahmadinejad's strategy of becoming the region's hegemonic power under the protection of a nuclear umbrella as it marches toward a possible nuclear confrontation with the U.S. and the West.
The more the United States and it allies hesitate to confront Iran's current regional threat under a possible nuclear umbrella, the more emboldened Jihadi confidence becomes. The December 6, 2006, Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report proposal recommending a "softer" diplomatic approach via a U.S.-led diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria, and Israel's reengagement of the Assad regime and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, may paradoxically accelerate the process to military confrontation with Iran. Rather, full diplomatic and economic isolation, and, if necessary, military defeat of Iran and Syria, would pave a more secure road for the Middle East and the international state system.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Transforming the Narrative
by
Alexander Arndt
In Communist East Germany, anti-Zionist indoctrination was part of our curriculum. A classmate of mine in elementary school was almost kicked out of school for drawing a Star of David - whatever his intentions were; it was considered an "imperialist symbol". During the first Intifada we had to make posters about Israeli human rights violations. The Berlin Wall became history in
1989 but my belief that Israel was a cruel dictatorship lingered on until my parents took me there in 1992. Needless to say, I was reluctant to go. But my perception of the Jewish state changed drastically from then on - for the better.
Times change and we change with them. Today, Germany is presiding over the EU Council while the world in general and Israel in particular are severely challenged by global Jihad and Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bertelsmann Foundation, a well-respected German organization associated with one of the worlds largest media companies, has just released a new study on the German-Jewish relationship seventeen years after the reunification.
Prior to 1990, both Israel and West Germany had worked on forming a special relationship, something that was all but self-evident after the Shoah. When the Cold War order disintegrated not altogether smoothly, right-wing extremism soared in Germany with Jewish cemeteries desecrated and xenophobic riots lasting for days on end. Our politicians were quick to assert that we had learned a lesson from our past: "Never again war."
During this turbulent transition Israelis had a reason to be concerned. When asked in 1991, almost 80% of them saw the reunited Germany threatened by right wing extremism. True, more than a third of the Germans agreed that "the Jews had too much influence in the world" and almost a half believed that the Jews were responsible for being hated. These embarrassing numbers were not exactly a cause to celebrate when "the end of history" (Fukuyama) was announced.
But history has moved on. Germany has proven to be a strong democracy and is, as president of the EU Council, committed to furthering its special relationship with Israel.
Many Germans, including myself, had hoped for the success of the Oslo peace process. For some, including myself, its failure has been a wake up call. Still, many things can be said about Europeans living in denial about threats against Israel's security.
Some of the findings of the new Bertelsmann study provide reasons for concern. While Israelis see the new democratic Germany in a far better light than before, wouldn't it be great if the Germans would have left any sort of anti-Semitism - open, secondary, or anti-Zionist - behind them?
Alas, if anti-Semitism is waning, it is doing so very slowly. Still, one of three Germans believes in a disproportionately high Jewish influence in the world and only 58% can bring themselves to "absolutely disagree" with the appalling notion that the Jews are responsible for being hated.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Consider this: only one of four strongly disagrees that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people, and even less reject the idea that Israeli treatment of Palestinians equals Nazi treatment of Jews. In light of this, it doesn't come as a surprise that some German bishops on a recent visit immediately compared Ramallah to the Warsaw Ghetto. This gross inversion of Holocaust memory reveals that many Germans tend to transfer guilt on the grounds that the moral lesson of the Shoah is "Never again war."
I was born in a society where young people were indoctrinated to dislike Israel. For the root cause of Nazi crimes was imperialism - a narrative that helped to deflect German guilt to the Western camp, Israel included. Similarly, Jewish victim hood was minimized. These views had some significant influence on West Germany's public discourse since the 1967 Six-Day-War and the rise of the student left in 1968.
Today, aforementioned "moral lesson" and full acknowledgment of the Holocaust are integral parts of the German self-image. But the Israeli lesson is the refusal to ever become victims again. Thus, what seems imperative is to help the German public to understand the existential threats Israel is facing. Whoever wants to prevent war must also secure peace.
The Bertelsmann study reveals that there is room for change of perception. German sympathies for the Israeli situation have increased significantly. Sure, only half of the Germans support the deployment of German troops to Lebanon, but one should not forget that the public debate in Germany centered around the fear of having to shoot at Jewish soldiers. Already almost two thirds of Germans realize that the Iranian nuclear program poses a severe threat to Israel, although dislike for military action is widespread.
I don't want to underestimate the disturbing findings on the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Germany. This has to be taken seriously and confronted appropriately. But I believe in the chance to transform the German narrative. If Germany is taking its moral lessons seriously, it has to move beyond the "never again war" with a vested interest in peace and security for Israel guided by its special relationship.
Alexander Arndt is a PhD-candidate at the University of Potsdam, Germany, and research associate for Knowing Israel, a study-tour program for European journalists.
by
Alexander Arndt
In Communist East Germany, anti-Zionist indoctrination was part of our curriculum. A classmate of mine in elementary school was almost kicked out of school for drawing a Star of David - whatever his intentions were; it was considered an "imperialist symbol". During the first Intifada we had to make posters about Israeli human rights violations. The Berlin Wall became history in
1989 but my belief that Israel was a cruel dictatorship lingered on until my parents took me there in 1992. Needless to say, I was reluctant to go. But my perception of the Jewish state changed drastically from then on - for the better.
Times change and we change with them. Today, Germany is presiding over the EU Council while the world in general and Israel in particular are severely challenged by global Jihad and Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bertelsmann Foundation, a well-respected German organization associated with one of the worlds largest media companies, has just released a new study on the German-Jewish relationship seventeen years after the reunification.
Prior to 1990, both Israel and West Germany had worked on forming a special relationship, something that was all but self-evident after the Shoah. When the Cold War order disintegrated not altogether smoothly, right-wing extremism soared in Germany with Jewish cemeteries desecrated and xenophobic riots lasting for days on end. Our politicians were quick to assert that we had learned a lesson from our past: "Never again war."
During this turbulent transition Israelis had a reason to be concerned. When asked in 1991, almost 80% of them saw the reunited Germany threatened by right wing extremism. True, more than a third of the Germans agreed that "the Jews had too much influence in the world" and almost a half believed that the Jews were responsible for being hated. These embarrassing numbers were not exactly a cause to celebrate when "the end of history" (Fukuyama) was announced.
But history has moved on. Germany has proven to be a strong democracy and is, as president of the EU Council, committed to furthering its special relationship with Israel.
Many Germans, including myself, had hoped for the success of the Oslo peace process. For some, including myself, its failure has been a wake up call. Still, many things can be said about Europeans living in denial about threats against Israel's security.
Some of the findings of the new Bertelsmann study provide reasons for concern. While Israelis see the new democratic Germany in a far better light than before, wouldn't it be great if the Germans would have left any sort of anti-Semitism - open, secondary, or anti-Zionist - behind them?
Alas, if anti-Semitism is waning, it is doing so very slowly. Still, one of three Germans believes in a disproportionately high Jewish influence in the world and only 58% can bring themselves to "absolutely disagree" with the appalling notion that the Jews are responsible for being hated.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Consider this: only one of four strongly disagrees that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people, and even less reject the idea that Israeli treatment of Palestinians equals Nazi treatment of Jews. In light of this, it doesn't come as a surprise that some German bishops on a recent visit immediately compared Ramallah to the Warsaw Ghetto. This gross inversion of Holocaust memory reveals that many Germans tend to transfer guilt on the grounds that the moral lesson of the Shoah is "Never again war."
I was born in a society where young people were indoctrinated to dislike Israel. For the root cause of Nazi crimes was imperialism - a narrative that helped to deflect German guilt to the Western camp, Israel included. Similarly, Jewish victim hood was minimized. These views had some significant influence on West Germany's public discourse since the 1967 Six-Day-War and the rise of the student left in 1968.
Today, aforementioned "moral lesson" and full acknowledgment of the Holocaust are integral parts of the German self-image. But the Israeli lesson is the refusal to ever become victims again. Thus, what seems imperative is to help the German public to understand the existential threats Israel is facing. Whoever wants to prevent war must also secure peace.
The Bertelsmann study reveals that there is room for change of perception. German sympathies for the Israeli situation have increased significantly. Sure, only half of the Germans support the deployment of German troops to Lebanon, but one should not forget that the public debate in Germany centered around the fear of having to shoot at Jewish soldiers. Already almost two thirds of Germans realize that the Iranian nuclear program poses a severe threat to Israel, although dislike for military action is widespread.
I don't want to underestimate the disturbing findings on the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Germany. This has to be taken seriously and confronted appropriately. But I believe in the chance to transform the German narrative. If Germany is taking its moral lessons seriously, it has to move beyond the "never again war" with a vested interest in peace and security for Israel guided by its special relationship.
Alexander Arndt is a PhD-candidate at the University of Potsdam, Germany, and research associate for Knowing Israel, a study-tour program for European journalists.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
April 22, 2007
It is as though we believe that political correctness (PC) has always been present; at least one generation of Americans has now “grown up” in a culture awash with PC language and behavior becoming acculturated with the belief that one must never speak or act in a manner that offends another human being. A minimal search on the Internet yields over 1.3 million story possibilities on the topic of PC examples-trust me; we live in a PC world. There are multiple groups who monitor language for purposes of identifying such language. For example, Language Monitor produces annual word and phrase lists for our edification.
The lists transcend politics, religion, education, business and daily conversation. This is not only specific to the USA the following are other examples:
· New Zealand- Parliament erected a fake Christmas tree with no lights to avoid any fire risk, and took off the angel to avoid offending non-Christians.
· Australia- “I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness—the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate.”
· Great Britain- the (British) Daily Mail, reports on “Samaritan’s Purse” a Christian charity bringing Christmas cheer to needy children abroad, that this year has banned “Jesus, God and anything else connected with its own faith” in case Muslims are offended.
· USA- The Democrats represent full-throttle political correctness while Republicans stand ready to advance political correctness just a little bit more slowly.
Finally, I imagine you have all been privy to some or all of these:
midget = vertically challenged gay = different
fired = laid off tall = person of height
homeless = residentially flexible Indian = Native American
poor = financially inept perverted = sexually dysfunctional
blind = visually challenged body odor = non-discretionary fragrance
Enough you say and I gladly join in your refrain. However, I cannot resist sharing one final example. What perhaps began with the best of intentions has now become more often than not somewhat laughable. Just some days ago in Poole Hospital in Dorset, England the staff was 'banned' from serving hot cross buns on Good Friday to avoid offending non-Christians (code for Muslims). Curiously, the hospital management, after some pressure from patients and workers did serve the hot cross buns on Easter Sunday. Of course, the tradition for centuries was to have them served on Good Friday. Ridiculous extremism or neurotic actions taken by a few who at best can be called appeasers?
Language is important as it is used to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. What is said and how it is expressed is important. Implicit and complicit with the concept of political correctness is a belief that one’s language can make someone else or others think, feel and act in a particular manner. I refer to this as the “makes-me-believe structure”, the essence of which is that a person’s words are responsible for making another person act, think, and/or feel fine, sad, happy, excited, in control, out of control, troubled, secure, and so many additional other thoughts, feelings and actions. This can be a powerful social and political device when employed in a diligent manner. It says that you are not responsible. As a matter of fact, it tells you that someone or something else is in control. This can lead you to believe that you are not responsible for your reactions to the people, events, and other things in your life. Therefore it is disabling to you. We see the results of a “makes-me-believe structure” every day and everywhere. Daily we hear the following:
· You make me so angry, I am going to …
· Driving on the freeway makes me so nervous, I sometimes …
· If I had a BMW, I would be accepted by …
· Must be the club that sliced the ball out of bounds
· Using the incorrect words or phrases will offend someone and hurt their feelings …
This structure works in two directions: if you accept that you can make someone …than you speak and act in a like manner toward that someone. Reverse the direction; you actually believe that someone or something outside of you can make you feel, act and think a certain way. Has it ever happened that you get a flat tire, get out of the car, kick the flat or use some four-letter words to describe your feelings and then blame the tire for causing you to feel angry? The power and control lies outside of yourself and you have entered the world of irresponsible actions, feelings and thoughts.
Here is the danger of such a belief structure: you give the power of control and responsibility to someone or something else. You act consistently in this manner and accept what others say as the truth. Political correctness has become so dominant in our culture due to this makes-me-believe structure. Here is an example: Individuals actually believe that they are responsible for another person’s feelings, thus you cannot say anything that may offend someone. Allow me to suggest that you are not responsible for anyone’s feelings. An individual’s feelings belong to each person and each of us can either own the feelings or blame them on others. Imagine the power one has if you subscribe to the latter point of view! Contrary to popular belief and myth is that a person can control one’s feelings-it is not possible. Go ahead, test this out-right now feel euphoric-do so for 30 seconds-now stop and feel profound sadness. The truth is that we all have feelings-own them and learn to deal with them in a responsible way.
The entire structure of political correctness operates upon a faulty belief system and yet it has become the dominant social and political tool used by groups today.
When someone says something to you, you have a choice as to how you will perceive it, think about it, and respond to it. The PC crowd has taught you to perceive/think/respond in a particular manner and the rest of us have allowed this to occur. I say–no more! The most common refrain I hear and read from Islamists should anyone dare to ask critical questions is that “we are offended/your words are offensive to Islam/you have insulted Islam” are among but a few thrown in our direction. There is a PC expectation that follows the “I am offended” statement. First an apology must be forthcoming, penance must be demonstrated, and finally repentance must be enjoined. Others and I are not responsible for offending Islamists; we are, however, responsible for what we say. Given my intention is to ask critical questions then how these are perceived and the resultant choice by the listener as to how he/she will hear the question the responsibility lies with the listener. The assumption is that the listener is willing to be held accountable for his/her own thoughts, feelings and actions.
Of course the PC groups do not want us to wake up and see through their faulty thinking and/or arrogant behavior. They count upon us to stand down when the “O” word is thrown at us. The result has been a most interesting and dangerous political and social engineering within the western countries. People have become afraid to state their personal values, stand up for these values and take the necessary actions to ensure that our culture we so love remains intact. The final Part Three of what has amounted to a short treatise will present additional strategies to counter the dangers of political correctness. A case study will be used to demonstrate additional strategies that can be used to combat the dangers of PC.
End Notes
1. The Top Politically InCorrect Words for 2006: http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html
2. No Offence: Political Correctness in New Zealand
3. New Correctness August 26, 2002 http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/08/02-08-26.shtml
4. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD”, Nov 22,2006
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000801.html
5. The gods of Political Correctness, Thursday, March 15, 2007
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2007/03/gods-of-political-correctness.html
6. Political correctness urban style
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=political+correctness
7. JAMES MILLS, “Hospital that 'banned' hot cross buns to avoid offending non-Christians”, April 10, 2007, Daily Mail.
Special acknowledgment and thank you to my editor Chana Givon
Online: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/ & http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
April 22, 2007
It is as though we believe that political correctness (PC) has always been present; at least one generation of Americans has now “grown up” in a culture awash with PC language and behavior becoming acculturated with the belief that one must never speak or act in a manner that offends another human being. A minimal search on the Internet yields over 1.3 million story possibilities on the topic of PC examples-trust me; we live in a PC world. There are multiple groups who monitor language for purposes of identifying such language. For example, Language Monitor produces annual word and phrase lists for our edification.
The lists transcend politics, religion, education, business and daily conversation. This is not only specific to the USA the following are other examples:
· New Zealand- Parliament erected a fake Christmas tree with no lights to avoid any fire risk, and took off the angel to avoid offending non-Christians.
· Australia- “I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness—the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate.”
· Great Britain- the (British) Daily Mail, reports on “Samaritan’s Purse” a Christian charity bringing Christmas cheer to needy children abroad, that this year has banned “Jesus, God and anything else connected with its own faith” in case Muslims are offended.
· USA- The Democrats represent full-throttle political correctness while Republicans stand ready to advance political correctness just a little bit more slowly.
Finally, I imagine you have all been privy to some or all of these:
midget = vertically challenged gay = different
fired = laid off tall = person of height
homeless = residentially flexible Indian = Native American
poor = financially inept perverted = sexually dysfunctional
blind = visually challenged body odor = non-discretionary fragrance
Enough you say and I gladly join in your refrain. However, I cannot resist sharing one final example. What perhaps began with the best of intentions has now become more often than not somewhat laughable. Just some days ago in Poole Hospital in Dorset, England the staff was 'banned' from serving hot cross buns on Good Friday to avoid offending non-Christians (code for Muslims). Curiously, the hospital management, after some pressure from patients and workers did serve the hot cross buns on Easter Sunday. Of course, the tradition for centuries was to have them served on Good Friday. Ridiculous extremism or neurotic actions taken by a few who at best can be called appeasers?
Language is important as it is used to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. What is said and how it is expressed is important. Implicit and complicit with the concept of political correctness is a belief that one’s language can make someone else or others think, feel and act in a particular manner. I refer to this as the “makes-me-believe structure”, the essence of which is that a person’s words are responsible for making another person act, think, and/or feel fine, sad, happy, excited, in control, out of control, troubled, secure, and so many additional other thoughts, feelings and actions. This can be a powerful social and political device when employed in a diligent manner. It says that you are not responsible. As a matter of fact, it tells you that someone or something else is in control. This can lead you to believe that you are not responsible for your reactions to the people, events, and other things in your life. Therefore it is disabling to you. We see the results of a “makes-me-believe structure” every day and everywhere. Daily we hear the following:
· You make me so angry, I am going to …
· Driving on the freeway makes me so nervous, I sometimes …
· If I had a BMW, I would be accepted by …
· Must be the club that sliced the ball out of bounds
· Using the incorrect words or phrases will offend someone and hurt their feelings …
This structure works in two directions: if you accept that you can make someone …than you speak and act in a like manner toward that someone. Reverse the direction; you actually believe that someone or something outside of you can make you feel, act and think a certain way. Has it ever happened that you get a flat tire, get out of the car, kick the flat or use some four-letter words to describe your feelings and then blame the tire for causing you to feel angry? The power and control lies outside of yourself and you have entered the world of irresponsible actions, feelings and thoughts.
Here is the danger of such a belief structure: you give the power of control and responsibility to someone or something else. You act consistently in this manner and accept what others say as the truth. Political correctness has become so dominant in our culture due to this makes-me-believe structure. Here is an example: Individuals actually believe that they are responsible for another person’s feelings, thus you cannot say anything that may offend someone. Allow me to suggest that you are not responsible for anyone’s feelings. An individual’s feelings belong to each person and each of us can either own the feelings or blame them on others. Imagine the power one has if you subscribe to the latter point of view! Contrary to popular belief and myth is that a person can control one’s feelings-it is not possible. Go ahead, test this out-right now feel euphoric-do so for 30 seconds-now stop and feel profound sadness. The truth is that we all have feelings-own them and learn to deal with them in a responsible way.
The entire structure of political correctness operates upon a faulty belief system and yet it has become the dominant social and political tool used by groups today.
When someone says something to you, you have a choice as to how you will perceive it, think about it, and respond to it. The PC crowd has taught you to perceive/think/respond in a particular manner and the rest of us have allowed this to occur. I say–no more! The most common refrain I hear and read from Islamists should anyone dare to ask critical questions is that “we are offended/your words are offensive to Islam/you have insulted Islam” are among but a few thrown in our direction. There is a PC expectation that follows the “I am offended” statement. First an apology must be forthcoming, penance must be demonstrated, and finally repentance must be enjoined. Others and I are not responsible for offending Islamists; we are, however, responsible for what we say. Given my intention is to ask critical questions then how these are perceived and the resultant choice by the listener as to how he/she will hear the question the responsibility lies with the listener. The assumption is that the listener is willing to be held accountable for his/her own thoughts, feelings and actions.
Of course the PC groups do not want us to wake up and see through their faulty thinking and/or arrogant behavior. They count upon us to stand down when the “O” word is thrown at us. The result has been a most interesting and dangerous political and social engineering within the western countries. People have become afraid to state their personal values, stand up for these values and take the necessary actions to ensure that our culture we so love remains intact. The final Part Three of what has amounted to a short treatise will present additional strategies to counter the dangers of political correctness. A case study will be used to demonstrate additional strategies that can be used to combat the dangers of PC.
End Notes
1. The Top Politically InCorrect Words for 2006: http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html
2. No Offence: Political Correctness in New Zealand
3. New Correctness August 26, 2002 http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/08/02-08-26.shtml
4. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD”, Nov 22,2006
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000801.html
5. The gods of Political Correctness, Thursday, March 15, 2007
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2007/03/gods-of-political-correctness.html
6. Political correctness urban style
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=political+correctness
7. JAMES MILLS, “Hospital that 'banned' hot cross buns to avoid offending non-Christians”, April 10, 2007, Daily Mail.
Special acknowledgment and thank you to my editor Chana Givon
Online: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/ & http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)